Father counterpart of the mother

Today we can see that our society has distorted the ideas about man, woman, relationships between people, matrimony and how humankind has to behave and take care of next generations.

Woman and Man (Alternately, Husband and Wife) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the old times ‘Marriage‘ was about a sacred union of one man and one woman for life. In today’s society it is more considered as a union which can be taken on for some time, between two people, who do not necessary have to love each other for always, or have to have the opposite gender. For lots of people it may be an arrangement for economical and practical reasons and should not be necessary be taken before having sex with the other person, nor does it have to mean for them they have to stay committed to that one person.

In Genesis 2nd chapter is written:

18 Then Jehovah God said: “It is not good for the man to continue to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”+ (NWT)

18 And Jehovah* God went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement* of him.”+ (RefB)

as a complement {Or, “counterpart,” something fitting for him } of him:

(Proverbs 31:11): 11 In her the heart of her owner* has put trust, and there is no gain lacking.+

(1 Corinthians 11:8,9): 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.+ 9 And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.+

(1 Timothy 2:13): 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.+

(Genesis 2:22): 22 And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man.+

***

The man’s being alone is not good; I will make him a helper to match him. — Gen. 2:18, “Byington.”

In Harmony before Matrimony (1805), James Gillray caricatured a courtship in which the couple sings together from Duets de l’Amour. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jehovah knows everything there is to know about mankind and marriage. He implanted a sexual need in humans so that they would “be fruitful and become many.” (Genesis 1:28) God understands feelings of loneliness, for prior to creating the first woman, he said the words of today’s text. Jehovah is also fully aware of the joy possible within the bonds of matrimony. (Proverbs 5:15-18) Because of sin and imperfection, no present-day marriage is perfect. Among Jehovah’s servants, however, wedlock can result in true happiness if God’s Word is followed. For instance, consider Paul’s clear counsel on intimate relations in marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

 

7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is better for a man not to touch* a woman; 2 but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality,* let each man have his own wife+ and each woman have her own husband.+ 3 Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband.+ 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time, so that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control. 6 However, I say this by way of concession, not as a command. 7 But I wish all men were as I am. Nevertheless, each one has his own gift+ from God, one in this way, another in that way. (1 Corinthians 7:1-7)

It is not Scripturally required that marriage mates limit sexual relations to efforts to produce offspring. Such intimacy can rightly fill emotional and physical needs. But perverted practices certainly do not please God. w12 5/15 1:9, 10

+

Preceding articles:

Gender roles and Multitasking parents

 Father and motherhood

 Dignified role for the woman

 Having children interferes with work

Dutch version /Nederlandstalige versie: Vader tegenhanger van de moeder

++

Find more literature:

1. Walking alone?
2. What loneliness is more lonely than distrust?
3. Companionship
4. Creator and Blogger God 5 Things to tell
5. Book Review: Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe & Casey Luskin, Science & Human Origins. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2012.124pp.
6. Story of Jesus’ birth begins long before the New Testament
7. Women, conservative evangelicals and their counter-offensive
8. Bible Guidelines for a happy marriage
9. Manifests for believers #2 Changing celibacy requirement
10. Poverty and conservative role patterns
11. Being religious has benefits even in this life
12. I started off with the little things….
13. Three keys to a happy marriage
14. In marriage not wounding each other
15. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love
16. Love and win
17. For God loves me
18. The task given to us to love each other
19. The Seven Daughters of Eve

+++

Related articles

• Is marriage just a social union? (illustrationstoencourage.wordpress.com)
  In God’s eyes, marriage is much more than a mere social arrangement. It is a sacred union between a man and a woman. The Bible says: “From the beginning of creation ‘[God] made them male and female. On this account a man will leave his father and mother, and the two will be one flesh’ . . . Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.” *—Mark 10:6-9; Genesis 2:24.

  The words, “what God yoked [or, joined] together,” do not mean that marriages are made in heaven. Rather, by pointing to our Creator as the Originator of the marriage arrangement, the Bible emphasizes the seriousness of this union. Couples who see their marriage in that light treat it as a sacred, permanent bond, thus strengthening their determination to make their marriage a success. They further increase their prospects for success when they turn to the Bible for guidance in fulfilling their respective roles as husband and wife.

• Real marriage (williamb97.wordpress.com)
  David says that we find favor with God when we find a godly wife. God wants people to be married. But married in the way and by the definition that He has set.This is going to sound really harsh and maybe even mean spirited, but all I am doing is clearing the air about what God says about Marriage and Homosexuality. Homosexuals will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Think that sounds wrong or that I am being judgmental? Nope, this comes straight from God’s Word
• Ask John Calvin: What is a wife for? (annsechrist.wordpress.com)
  There was no place for man being the “spiritual” spouse, and women being the “practical” one, created to fulfill a man’s sexual needs, produce children, and manage the home. Though this was a common philosophy of the day andcontains a bit of truth, the Scriptures—and Calvin—so obviously disagreed. A wife is the “inseparable associate of his life,” which must mean she is intelligent, companionable, talented, and fully able to comealongside or “across from” her husband to help him with his mission in life.Part of this mission may be to cuddle in bed, carry his children, cook his meals, and teach his sons and daughters how to spell. But that should not at all detract from the understanding that her mission is to inseparably associate herself with every aspect of his life in which she can prove herself helpful, be it business accounting, back massages, writing letters and making phone calls, editing books, research and writing, understanding and being able to discuss the gospel, buying land, giving to charity, making decisions he would have made when he is absent, and in every way proving herself a help. She should truly be a crown that does not diminish the glory of God in her husband, but causes it to show the brighter. Those are my thoughts, but read Calvin. His opinion is what you really want to hear. It’s a long quote, but hopefully my (added) paragraph breaks will help you to process it! Here it is:
• Cohabitating Seniors and the Meaning of Marriage (ezerwoman.wordpress.com)
  An increasing number of older men and women are moving in together.  But,it appears to me that their rationale is fear-based.  Perhaps their spouse has died.  They don’t wantto be alone.  Financially, it seems practical not to marry and, instead, live together.  Perhaps it seems less complicated to keep their business affairs separate for the sake of their children and grandchildren.  Perhaps insurance coverage ora life-savings will be better protected if theyjustcohabitate.  After all, it isn’t so much about sex as it is companionship and being a couple in a “couple’s world.”So, what isacohabitating senior, especiallyacohabitating Christian senior, saying about marriage?Is marriage all about the joys ofpro-creational sex?  Or is it more?Marriage, from a Biblical worldview, is the practice of generational faithfulness.  It is the union of one man and one woman with all that they uniquely bring into partnership for the benefit of family and community.  In God’s words, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18 ESV).
• A Mother’s Take on Intimacy (mealsdeals31thrills.wordpress.com)
  We’ve all heard stories or statistics about how physical intimacy effects men and women differently – usually as a warning to non-married adolescents. But this was not an accident. God did it on purpose.
  +
  God created us women to be organizers, list-makers, Do-ers, Feel-ers, Listeners, Care-takers. He knew we would zero in on those roles that cause us to put others first, so He created man with a strong physical desire to help remind us to enjoy our husbands.
  +
  In case you weren’t aware, it just so happens that the only way to become a mother is through physical intimacy – the very thing our husbands most desire, not from an unhealthy or dirty intention our society has sometimes made it to be, but as a way of expressing the love between one another. (I suppose in this day and age you could argue we have science that can help us, but I’m referring to the first and most natural way, before the science existed.)
• Our Home and Environs – Part 1 (sonlightdevotional.org)

  One of the greatest needs in the world today is proper home life, in particular, and good human relations, in general.

  Life, on a whole (which comes from God), is taken so lightly (from conception to termination) that regard and respect are no longer qualities associated with man dealing with man.

• How a wife can defeat her husband. (wretchednetwork.wordpress.com)
  It is better to live in a desert land, than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman. (Proverbs 21:19,

Book Review: Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe & Casey Luskin, Science & Human Origins. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2012.124pp.

Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, Intelligent Design proponent. Lecture at DPC, University of Maine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The latest publication from the Discovery Institute (the organisation that promotes Intelligent Design theory) is somewhat of a departure from their previous coyness regarding religion. As the introduction by John West describes, “intelligent design focuses on whether the development of life was purposeful or blind” and not on common descent (p11); indeed many ID advocates accept common descent (e.g. Michael Behe). This book not only challenges the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor but also explores whether there is evidence that all mankind is descended from an original couple (who are frequently labelled “Adam and Eve”). The motivation for this foray into common descent is the claims being made by theistic evolutionists, particularly the BioLogos Foundation, which, it is claimed, encourages Christians to revise “traditional Christian teachings” (pp9-10, 105-6).

In the debate over evolution it defenders and its critics often argue past each other. Evolutionists claim evolution did happen because of such things as the similarities in morphology and DNA, distribution of fossils, and apparent ancestral vestiges. Creationists claim evolution could not happen because of such things as irreducible complexity, symbiotic organisms, and the sheer improbability of invention by random mutation. Science & Human Origins fits within this mould, though it does cite some new evidence.

The first two chapters centre on an experiment conducted by Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe, in which they identified two proteins with similar morphology but different function and tried to estimate how one could evolve into the other by neo-darwinian processes. They concluded that it would require seven coordinated mutations to occur, something too improbable to have occurred within the history of the universe (p20). From this finding they argue that, firstly, unguided processes could not have produced the changes necessary to evolve humans from apes, and, secondly, similar morphology is not a reliable indicator common ancestry. This research is interesting and the sort of evidence that anti-evolutionists need to produce if they are to affect a shift from the current neo-Darwinian paradigm. But, at most, this kind of experiment demonstrates the ineffectiveness of random mutation; it does not, of itself, rule out common descent. And, as has often been pointed out, it is difficult to prove a negative. Maybe it didn’t happen this way; that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

The third chapter is an interesting review of the literature regarding the fossil record. It highlights the vast uncertainties about the earliest hominin fossils (4-7 million years ago). Then it presses the differences between the australopithecines (1-4 million years ago) and the homo genus (0-2 million years ago); the former are considered an extinct form of ape, the latter are considered part of the family of humans. The fourth chapter considers two genetic arguments for common descent, so-called “junk DNA” and chromosomal fusion. It was previously argued that large regions of non-coding DNA within the human genome made intelligent design unlikely. Recent research has demonstrated that much that was previously considered junk is now known to be functional. The more interesting argument is that the 23^rd human chromosome-pair seems to be fusion of two ape chromosome-pairs (apes have 24 chromosome-pairs). Casey Luskin challenges this argument saying that at most it shows that a human ancestor had 24 chromosome-pairs, not that this ancestor was a common ancestor with apes; this response does not seem to be particularly strong. Luskin also suggests that the similarity between the 23^rd human chromosome-pair and ape chromosome-pairs is not as compelling as it might appear; it is difficult for a non-scientist to judge.

In the final chapter Gauger challenges an argument from population genetics put forward by Francisco Ayala, which implies that there was never a bottle-neck of a single human couple in our ancestry (Ayala assumes common descent with apes). This chapter is quite technical, but in brief, Gauger reveals the hidden assumptions in Ayala’s argument, cites other studies that focused on other parts of the gene, and concludes that it is possible that there was such a bottleneck. Gauger then goes further and considers the possibility that humans and apes did not have a common ancestor, citing some examples that would not be expected on current evolutionary models (e.g. regions of the human genome that are closer to gorilla than ape sequences).

This is an interesting book and, at very least, sketches the relevant issues in the ongoing debate over common descent. Its inadequacy, and the inadequacy of much of ID research, is that it does not present a unified alternative to the current evolutionary narrative. Reading between the lines, there is equivocation over the whether to just reject unguided neo-Darwinian processes or to also propose an act of special creation as an alternative to common descent. (This equivocation is probably representative of the equivocation within the ID community). It seems incumbent on those who would reject common descent to propose an alternative narrative for the distribution of fossils and the variation with the human genome. It seems the authors are sorely tempted to say that God created Adam and Eve as a distinct genus (including Home erectus and Home neanderthalensis, as well as Homo sapiens) and that some evolutionary process is responsible for the variation found within the genus, but this is never stated explicitly (nor is it likely to be).

Those who believe in the special creation of a single human couple from whom all humanity descends are likely to take comfort from these scientific challenges to the current neo-darwinian paradigm, but this is not the book that will cause a paradigm shift.

+++

Related articles

• How to Test for Intelligent Design (str.typepad.com)
  Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute writes an interesting article in response to a scientist’s statement that “the Intelligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions of God or any other Intelligent Designer.”Luskin points out that, on the contrary, we can understand when actions are being taken by intelligent designers (such as human beings), and from that, make testable predictions.
• Genes (slideshare.net)
  Each cell in the human body contains about 25,000 to 35,000 genes. Genes carry information that determines your traits.
• The Discovery Institute gets terminally desperate: considers evolutionary rebuttals of creationist arguments as “condemning religion” (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
  The Discovery Institute, losing its battle for Intelligent Design (ID) on all fronts (they can’t even get it taught in a Texas community college!) has resorted to a desperation move: attacking the characters of evolutionary biologists.  How this will give evidence for ID is beyond me: perhaps they think that if they show character flaws in evolutionists they thereby discredit our discipline. But whatever happened to their promise to that “scientific” evidence for ID was “right around the corner”? They seem to have forgotten that one.And they should be mindful of the beam in their own eye: despite their claim that ID isn’t religiously motivated, virtually everyone at the Discovery Institute is religious, and some of them (like Paul Nelson and William Dembski) unwisely proclaim their religious motivations when they think they’re out of earshot.
• Casey Luskin’s latest take on junk DNA – is he lying or is he stupid? (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
  The issue of junk DNA is a case in point. We’ve been trying to explain the facts to people like Casey Luskin. I know he’s listening because he comments on Sandwalk from time to time. Surely it can’t be that hard? All they have to do is acknowledge that “Darwinians” are opposed to junk DNA because they think that natural selection is very powerful and would have selected against junk DNA. All we’re asking is that they refer to “evolutionary biologists” when they talk about junk DNA proponents.
  
• Discovery Institute’s Triumph #5 for 2013 (sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com)
  The Discoveroids were proclaiming the good news of a book — Discovering Intelligent Design — published by their in-house vanity press, the Discovery Institute Press, and written by “home school educators Gary and Hallie Kemper [of whom no one ever heard], and Discovery Institute research coordinator Casey Luskin.”
• Discovery Institute Embraces Martyrdom (sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com)
  Some of you may not have been around back in 2010 when your compassionate Curmudgeon honored him — see Casey Luskin Is Named a Curmudgeon Fellow. Most of his long post today is just a copy of what he posted a few weeks ago, about which we wrote Discoveroids Suffer a Crushing Defeat.Yes, Casey is claiming that the Discoveroids’ defeat at Amarillo College, a state-run, two-year community college in Amarillo, Texas, is one of their big highlights of the year. They were apparently embarked on a stealth campaign to infiltrate two-year community colleges with their kind of creationist course, using their books, thinking that no one would notice. But their plans were thwarted when the non-credit course was cancelled.

Women, conservative evangelicals and their counter-offensive

Many Evangelical Christians today claim that we ought to defer to the tradition of the Church when faced with difficult matters such as the status of homosexuals in the community of faith or the nature of the atonement. We can see a lot of changes in the position of the public against homo couples. In the polls worldwide we can see attitudes have shifted over time. In 1988, the two-thirds of white Americans for example, believed that “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” was “always wrong,” including 85 percent of born-again Christians. By 2010, both groups began to accept same-sex relationships. Born-again Christians still opposed homosexuality, but they answered the questions the same way non-believers answered in the 1980s. In 2010, two-thirds of evangelicals believed that homosexuality is “always wrong,” compared to just 30 percent of others.

John Piper’s church. Also see here (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Evangelicals may also differ on the role of the women in their community. Most of them affirm male headship in ordain­ing men only to pastoral ministry, but they also practice male headship in the way that they carry out the other dis­cipleship and teaching ministries of the church. So male headship characterizes both ordained and non-ordained minis­tries in the church.

In the catholic and Protestant religions we do find that many are convinced that only qualified men are ordained to the pastoral office (hierarchy in principle), and women do not teach Christian doctrine to men (hierarchy in practice). John Piper‘s position:

“Men should bear primary responsibility for Christlike headship and teaching in the church. So it is un­biblical . . . and therefore detrimental, for women to assume this role” (John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 60-61).

This hierarchy in both principle and practice reflects a certain interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, an interpretation that Douglas Moo ad­vocates in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood:

“We think 1 Timothy 2:8-15 imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: they are not to teach Christian doctrine to men and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church.” ^{{Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” 180.}}

While most of the young reformed evangelicals are closing ranks around traditional, conservative views of biblical inspiration and author­ity, some in the emerging church are re­vising and moving away from the same. One can hardly envision reconciliation on the gender question as long as the two groups continue on these radically divergent trajectories.

John Piper describes practices of Pas­tor Mark Driscoll who allows women to teach and lead men within the minis­tries of Mars Hill Church, as “detrimental” to the life of the church. {John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” 61.} Nevertheless, these two men in particu­lar share a basic commitment to comple­mentarian principles and have enough common ground in their shared vision of the gospel to cooperate in endeavors such as “The Gospel Coalition,” a gos­pel renewal movement that confesses a strong complementarian position.

Priscilla Shirer who’s marriage appears to be just the sort of enlightened partnership that would make feminists cheer, avoids using words like “feminist” or “career woman” to describe herself. She is an evangelical Bible teacher who makes her living by guiding thousands of women through the study of Scripture in her books, videos and weekend conferences — in which she stresses that in a biblical home and church, the man is the head and the woman must submit.
She steers women away from the “feminist activists” who tell women to do their own thing. does a woman has to go out of the house and find a ‘proper’ job to bring more money in the family till? Can the woman make up her own decisions or is tit that she let a man “slow her down,” as she puts it?

For her it is clear that it is an evil demon, called “Satan” who “will do everything in his power to get us to take the lead in our home.” She forgets to see that satan just means any adversary or evil within, and according to the Bible is not a sort of monster which shall bring people into his realm were people shall be tortured for ever.

Molly Worthen writes

Shirer and many conservative Christians believe that the Bible defines gender as a divinely ordained set of desires and duties inherent in each man and woman since the Garden of Eden. Gender is not an act or a choice, but a nonnegotiable gift. To these Christians, the story of Adam and Eve’s creation granted man authority over woman, and they understand the New Testament teachings of Paul and his comrades — in particular, that wives should submit to their husbands — not as cultural relics of the first century but as universal teachings that Christians apply today.

Cover of Women in Ministry: Four Views

In the industrialised countries we see sexual liberation has saturated the general culture and brought most citizens away from the church-institutions, but also away from the Holy Scriptures. Many people took the attitudes and sayings of churches as actions of men of God. They took their conclusions when they saw so many wrong goings by the clergy. In the meantime mainline churches are ordaining women and homosexuals, conservative evangelicals are escalating their counter-offensive.

To critics, “complementarian” is code for sexist patriarchy, a license to keep women muzzled and homebound. Yet spending even five minutes with Priscilla Shirer and her husband suggests that reality is far more complicated — not only at home but also in the new “separate sphere” that this theology has spawned: a subculture of Bible studies, conferences, ministries, religious retreats and literature ranging from Christian fitness books to Christian romance novels, all produced by and for evangelical women.

Molly Worthen writes in the New York times Magazine article Housewives of God.

Those who think the woman may not teach about the Word of God should look at those persons who opened their houses and got people in to listen to them. There we found in the first home-churches active women who not only taught their children but also their servants. The woman of the household was the  person teaching becoming the authority. Since the parent is already the authority, as God intended it to be from creation, there should be no problem in women teaching doctrine to their own children. but they had to remember that the husband would always be the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, but he is also subject to his Father, the Only One God. Like Jesus follows his Father, man and woman who say they are followers of Christ Jesus the Messiah, should follow Jesus.

The wives when they are in subjection to their own husbands should not have to bow to every other man and have to follow what they say. those wives also had to follow first the Word of God, like for every body it should be the Law of God which has to be followed in the first instance and than the laws of men as long as they contradict not the Law of God. It is by the right attitude the subjective woman can gain the man. Namely that, if any obey not God’s Word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.

MInistry in Contemporary Culture – Does Evangelicalism have a Future? (Photo credit: George Fox Evangelical Seminary)

Those discussing the role of the woman in culture and in the church often also claim tradition as a source of authority. But why then do those Christians not take literal translations from the original Scriptures? Should English speaking people not be translating their English Bibles from the LXX since that is what the early church (not to mention the writers of the NT!) considered inspired?

Some of these same Evangelicals boldly proclaim that every book that we have in our canon as Protestants (and onlythe set that we have in our canon) is without error. Again, where does that leave our sisters and brothers from the early Church (or the Eastern Orthodox tradition which uses the LXX)?

writes Garret Menges in Rethinking Scripture.

A brief survey of the history of the LXX raises some questions about the way we view Scripture today. For example, is the LXX inspired Scripture even though it’s a translation of a more original textual tradition? If not, then are the fragments that have made it into our NT inspired? Were the scribes who translated Isaiah, for example, quickly taken up in the Spirit while contemplating how to translate the Hebrew word for “young woman” only to have the Spirit leave them shortly after the translation of that single verse?

To make matters even more complicated, the earliest copies of the Hebrew text we have are those of the Masoretes from the 7th to 11th centuries CE. The Masoretes, being faithful preservers of the oral tradition of the Scriptures that were passed on from generation to generation, decided that it was time their tradition be put on paper and so they transcribed the documents that we use today for the translation of our own English Bibles. The fact that we consider the Masoretic Hebrew text to be the authoritative version of the OT is based on the (not small) assumption that the Hebrew oral tradition was indeed successfully passed down from generation to generation completely untarnished. In fact, modern Christian translators are so committed to this assumption that we overlook the fact that the LXX predates the Masoretic Text (MT) by over 1,000 years! Could it not be argued that even though the LXX is a translation of a more original textual tradition it nevertheless ought to be considered more reliable than the MT simply because of its much earlier date of composition?

Men and women should look into that matter and get to know what the Holy Scriptures can tell them about their positions they do have to take.
They should get to remember where the words came from in what sort of language and how that language was used. Getting to know the proverbs of that language they should get a fluid and organic understanding of what Scripture is to begin with. Many may think lots of fallible and errant human beings were involved in “making up what some consider to be an infallible and/or inerrant group of texts.”

Though we should trust the Higher Being who let His Words to be written down for future generations so that they could learn from it. We should look at Jesus who kept to the Words of his Father and considered Them to be set apart (holy) and inspired, bearing witness to the God many believe was fully revealed in the person of Jesus. but those who take Jesus to be God look over the Words of the Father who calls that Jewish man His son and not Himself. It are doctrines like the Holy Trinity, twisting of the Words of God, church teachings of flat earth a.o. things people did have to believe which undermined the credibility of the Holy Scriptures.

To say it is authoritative means that as a body of believers we are committed to reading the text and rereading it, both devotionally and liturgically, wrestling with it, discussing it over a meal, and maybe even at times disagreeing with it but never, despite all the frustrations it may cause us, doing away with it. In other words, the authority of the Bible is not something it inherently holds but is something we grant it as the Church. The Bible is authoritative because we say it’s authoritative and we need no reason beyond that. And none of this has anything to do with whether or not there are any mistakes in the Bible or if it’s scientifically or historically accurate or if the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation.

Mistranslation or not, people should always go and look what is behind the words, written in black and white,or some also in colour ink. then they would find out that the Bible is not as difficult to read and understand as they first thought. When willingness is there to take the words for what they say, everything shall become clear, and than people will see that the Bible always told the truth and brings a message to believe in, giving us enough indication what to do with our life, how us to behave and which roles we do have to take.

Man can find solutions and guidance for their position and should be aware of the role the Creator had for each of us, men and women.

+

Please do find:

1. Younger Evangelicals and Women in Ministry: A Sketch of the Spectrum of Opinion
2. Housewives of God
3. How Evangelicals Have Shifted in Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage
4. What The Bible Says About The Role of Women
5. Rethinking Scripture

+++

 

Related articles

• Wayne’s World Without Women Pastors (bltnotjustasandwich.com)
  Wayne Grudem’s and Barry Asmus’s book may fall into the hands of women who are church leaders, even pastors, in poor nations.
  +
  As we move out from the church and the home we move further from what is fairly clear and explicit to what is more ambiguous and inferential…. When it comes to all the thousands of occupations and professions, with their endlessly varied structures of management, God has chosen not to be specific about which roles men and women should fill…. For this reason we focus (within some limits) on how these roles are carried out rather than which ones are appropriate.
  +
  The godly women portrayed in the Old Testament are always seen as submissive to the leadership of their husbands. In fact Peter sees a pattern in their behavior that Christian wives should imitate, for he says, “For … Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord….”
• Dear White Christian Leaders, Don’t Do It. (davidswanson.wordpress.com)
  Last week brought disheartening news from white-evangelical-church-world. A well-publicized men’s conference was reported to have used both women and gay people as punchlines to jokes told from the stage. And, in An Open Letter from the Asian American Community to the Evangelical Church, a group of influential Asian American Christians pointed out a bunch of instances of racial stereotyping by different evangelical conferences, publishing houses, and pastors. For those paying attention – and/or on the receiving end of these offensive and marginalizing stereotypes – it seems impossible that these things keep happening. How is it that many Christian leaders of the evangelical-ish variety are continuing with language, images, and assumptions that are so unloving? It’s crazy, right?
• Staying Married Is Not About Staying in Love, Part 1 by John Piper (davidandleahweathers.wordpress.com)
  what it means for a Married couple to Truly be “One Flesh”, as God commands Marrieds to be in Several places in the Bible, starting in Genesis 2:24. Becoming One Flesh is what we Strive for in our own Marriage. But while we hear lip service paid to it, the high divorce rates, as well as the way we see Marrieds treat each other– even among professing Christian couples – suggest that it is indeed lip service only. Finding an example of a True “One Flesh” union is nearly impossible!
• Responding to the Gay Agenda (rethinkingtheology.com)
  The first thing you may want to do is to familiarize yourself with the details of the “gay agenda” (click HERE). Then think carefully about the components of it and ask yourself if the society envisioned by the homosexual apologists is the kind of society you want for yourself, for your children and for your grandchildren. Do you want your children and grandchildren to be indoctrinated and recruited into an abnormal, unnatural, immoral lifestyle that is inherently harmful to their health and will not produce grandchildren and great grandchildren for you to enjoy and love? Do you want our churches to be infiltrated by their heretical and damning theology and filthy morals? Do you want to be punished legally for merely disagreeing with them?
• New controversies in Evangelical theology (patheos.com)
  Evangelicals today are being torn by some major theological controversies.  The debate between Calvinists and Wesleyans is getting more and more heated.  Then there is a related debate between “Traditionists,” who believe Christians should hold onto the traditions of the historic church (particularly the decisions of the early church councils0 and the “Meliorists,” who reject holding onto traditions and believe the church can get better and better.  The Calvinists tend to be Traditionists (who themselves can be divided between “Biblicists” and “Paleo-Conservatives”) and the Wesleyans tend to be Meliorists.
• Church History (daltonmoore116.wordpress.com)
  The body of Christ suffers when believers are not accountable to each other and when they are not saturated in the Word of God, both inside the church and outside the church. I feel this way because in my opinion so many of the problems that the church faced throughout history, specifically in theology, could have been avoided or handled better if believers were accountable in their walks. Now whether or not this was truly the case I am not sure, but one thing I do know is that time spent in the Word and accountability are crucial in the walk of a Christian and without them problems are inevitable.
• “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Redesign): A Response to Evangelical Feminism” (graceandphysics.wordpress.com)
  “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Redesign): A Response to Evangelical Feminism”

  This studies the role of the man and woman in a biblical manner: more complementarian, and therefore hierarchical, or egalitarian? I really want to read this book… I have no idea what it will say or what God will show me through it, but yeah. I really want to read this book.

• Qumran Pt 2: Why do the Dead Sea Scrolls Matter? (glanier.wordpress.com)
  Though scholarship is still unfolding even today regarding the Scrolls’ origins, interpretation, history, etc., we at least have the benefit of over sixty years of perspective to evaluate the findings. That said, the Scrolls can be a bit of a hot-button issue (both in the scholarly world and the church), so I will try to be as balanced and critically sensitive as possible. I will cover three main topics and my standard concluding set of implications:
• How the Early Church Sought to Resolve Textual Variants (str.typepad.com)
  Dan Wallace of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has an interesting article offering evidence that the transmission of the New Testament text wasn’t merely linear—that is, it wasn’t like a child’s game of “Telephone” (or “Chinese Whispers,” for our European friends), where one person tells the next person, and he tells the next, and so on.
  +

  By the middle of the second century, when canon conscientiousness was on the rise, the Christian community regarded the autographs, or at least the earliest copies of the New Testament documents, as important witnesses. They were concerned about the purity of the text with regard to select textual variants. Most likely, this implies that the copying of the manuscripts in the early decades of the Christian faith was not that of strictly linear descent (one copy of another copy of another copy). Rather, there would be times when at least a few scribes would want to check behind their exemplar and look at its exemplar. This would especially occur whenever a disputed reading cropped up. So, there seems to have been a bit of a check on the quality of the transmission of the text from very early on.
• Men and Women: Equal yet Different (hillsbiblechurch.org)
  Gender is important because God created male and female (Gen. 1:27).
  +
  Some men have either become domineering or passive, whereas some women have become usurping and bought into the lie of a false sense of liberation. The truth is, only the Word of God provides a right understanding of gender. Such an understanding will provide true liberation as men and women function as God designed.

Dignified role for the woman

The dignity of the office of housewife is today by many forgotten. Many men are not conscious what a work it demands to keep the household running properly. there are men who wanted their wives to work outside the house, but who are not willing to take on themselves the jobs in the house. Instead many married men do expect to have the woman working to bring in extra money plus doing all the household tasks.

If we want to see gender equality we do have to find the household jobs being done by men and women, both sharing in equal tasks.

Equality (film), a short film produced and directed by Al Sutton, MD in 2010, that documents the largest gender equality strike in U.S. History, The Women’s Strike for Equality of 1970. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When we look at creation, the first woman, Eve, was provided as Adam’s complement, or counterpart, by the Creator. She was not created as a minor to the first man Adam. the divine Maker of all things, the Elohim Hashem Jehovah God assigned to the mannin or first woman an honourable role in the family arrangement. She was to be a part of God’s purpose for them to produce children and care for them as well as to take care of the earth and its animals. She would provide the intellectual stimulus and support of a true companion.

²⁶ And God* went on to say: “Let us+ make* man* in our image,*+ according to our likeness,+ and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”+ ²⁷ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him;+ male and female he created them.+ ²⁸ Further, God blessed+ them and God said to them: “Be fruitful+ and become many and fill the earth and subdue+ it, and have in subjection+ the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving* upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

²³ Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh.+ This one will be called Woman,* Because from man* this one was taken.”+ (Genesis 2:23.)

Today we have become a society where mothers are commonly made to feel that being a homemaker and caring for children is a second-class occupation. Women are made feeling guilty when they would prefer to look for the children. The world does not mind to see the children dropped at the crèche or childcare early in the morning, and to get them at the end of the day just to put them back into bed. Though they do not want that the childminders interfere with upbringing or that the educators at school give an education in ethical behaviour. Because of that we do have already three generations where we can find no guided social behaviour, creating several problems in social behaviour and finding ways to live together with others. Resulting in anti-social behaviour.

Some men and women feel that a woman needs a career outside the home in order to realize her full potential.

Through history we can see that the Divine Creator established guidelines for what women could do and as to how they were to be treated. For example, Israelite mothers were to be shown honor and not to be treated with contempt. If a son ‘called down evil upon his father and his mother,’ he would be subject to the death penalty. Christian youths were urged to be “obedient to [their] parents.”

³ “‘YOU should fear each one his mother and his father,*+ and my sabbaths YOU should keep.+ I am Jehovah YOUR God. (Leviticus 19:3)

⁹ “‘In case there should be any man who calls down evil upon his father and his mother,+ he should be put to death without fail.+ It is his father and his mother upon whom he has called down evil. His own blood* is upon him.+ (Leviticus; 20:9)

Children in the early times learned to be obedient to their parents and to those who got guidance over them, like their teachers. This does not seem to be appropriate any more today, and that iw why so much is going wrong in our society.

6 Children, be obedient* to YOUR parents+ in union+ with [the] Lord,* for this is righteous:+ (Ephesians 6:1)

¹⁶ “‘Honor your father and your mother,+ just as Jehovah your God has commanded you; in order that your days may prove long and it may go well with you+ on the ground that Jehovah your God is giving you. (Deuteronomy 5:16)

¹⁶ “‘Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.’+ (And all the people must say, ‘Amen!’) (Deuteronomy 27:16)

¹⁷ The eye that holds a father in derision and that despises obedience to a mother+—the ravens of the torrent valley will pick it out and the sons of the eagle will eat it up. (Proverbs 30:17.)

Men and women sitting on mats on the floor, reading books to edify themselves. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Father an mother were placed on the same level, and children did not have to honour their father more than their mother. Under the husband’s direction, the mother was to be the educator of both daughters and sons. A son was commanded ‘not to forsake the law of his mother.’

²⁰ Observe, O my son, the commandment of your father,+ and do not forsake the law of your mother.+ (Proverbs 6:20)

Also, Proverbs chapter 31 provides “the weighty message that [King Lemuel’s] mother gave to him in correction.” She wisely directed her son to avoid improper use of alcoholic beverages, saying: “It is not for kings to drink wine or for high officials to say: ‘Where is intoxicating liquor?’ that one may not drink and forget what is decreed and pervert the cause of any of the sons of affliction.”(Proverbs 31:1, 4, 5.)

The apostle Paul let his brethren know he also listened to his mother and grandmother and demanded that they also did that. (2 Timothy 1:5) It is from childhood that the basics of faith and the way of life should be given, to the babe, the teen, the adolescent, so that the young adult can remember how his or her parents and teachers brought wisdom to them. From infancy the children should have to learn about the way they do have to continue in their life. From infancy they have to known the Holy Scriptures, that are able to make them wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

¹⁵ and that from infancy+ you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation+ through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus.+ (2 Timothy 3:15)

In our society of men and women some may think it does not matter any more if men or going to live together with other men or women with other women. In the provision for manhood is foreseen that young man would find young woman and would contemplate going to live together under a bond called marriage. Considering such a bond the young man would be wise to consider the description of “a capable wife” that was given by King Lemuel’s mother, who said: “Her value is far more than that of corals.” Then, after describing the important contribution that such a wife makes to a household, the king’s mother said: “Charm may be false, and prettiness may be vain; but the woman that fears Jehovah is the one that procures praise for herself.” (Proverbs 31:10-31) Clearly, our Creator made women to occupy a position of honour and responsibility in the family.

In cultures where men received an education centred on the man, we can observe the mistreatment of and lack of respect for women. In places where it is accepted that the woman has to offer something very valuable to the community, people look at those women with respect.

We learn so much from mothers — habits that stand us in good stead throughout life, good manners so essential for good relationships, and in many cases a moral and spiritual upbringing that keeps youths on course.

Women should be proud and show their kids and husbands their reason for making our world a righteous place where every person can be treated equally respectful. The should find joy in loving their husbands, loving their children, and should be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonoured.  (Titus 2:4-5)

+++

“Mother and Child” by Henriette Browne; Wollstonecraft envisioned motherhood as a liberating role for women. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Francis Frangipane: A Special Word to the Women of God (soundofheavenblog.wordpress.com)
  When the Lord created humankind, He placed unique graces in man and separate but equally unique graces in woman. He told Adam to name the species of life on earth “and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name” (Genesis 2:19).
  +
  Within the genetics of this original man, there also existed the powerful, but dormant, qualities of the woman. While Adam slept the Spirit took from the man a rib. Fashioning it into a woman, the Lord created for Adam a companion. Not only was she suitable for him, but she powerfully expanded man’s creative capacities. Indeed, the woman brought many new graces into Adam’s world that did not formerly exist – the foremost of which was the power to conceive and give birth.
  +
  The term woman was a delineation used by Adam, identifying her as a unique variation in the species of man. My wife says, “Think of her as the upgrade.” In some ways, she is right, for the nature of the woman was twice refined. Adam was created of earth; the woman emerged not from the earth but from the man. She is both more complex and emotionally sophisticated.
  +
  Eve enlivened Adam in ways no other creature on earth could. Adam could build a house; Eve made it a home. When Adam named Eve “Life,” he was not only speaking prophetically of the first mother, but he was speaking out of his own experience: Eve brought life into the structure of Adam’s world.
• Polygenism is Problematic – A Catholic Caution on another Aspect of Evolutionary Theory (adw.org)
  Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human race descended from a pool of early human couples, indeterminate in number. Hence, this theory, Adam and Eve are merely symbols of Mankind. Rather than being an historical couple, they represent the human race as it emerges from the hominids that gave rise to them as they become homo sapiens, properly speaking.This is opposite to the idea of monogenism, which posits a single origin of humanity in Adam and Eve. In this understanding, Adam and Eve are historical figures who actually existed and from them alone the whole of the human race is descended.
• Genesis 3:15 (biblebeastswheatweeds.com)
  More than 4,000 years after Jehovah’s original prophecy, the promised Seed appeared. It was Jesus. (Galatians 3:16) As a perfect man, Jesus kept his integrity to the death and thus proved that Satan’s accusations were lies. In addition, since Jesus was sinless, his death was a sacrifice of great value. By means of it, Jesus provided deliverance from sin and death for faithful descendants of Adam and Eve. Jesus’ death on the torture stake was the ‘bruising in the heel’ of the promised Seed.—Hebrews 9:11-14.
• When Family Matters Most (r16sixteen.wordpress.com)
  He created a perpetual (until the return of the Savior) renewing of family. The family structure is important. It is a beautiful union of lives meant to love, care for and support one another. Without family suitable companionship cannot be found.
  +
  If companionship were suitable outside of marriage and the extension family, then God would not have needed to create the woman to be with the man. But God knew that man needed to be joined together in a companionship which leads to family.
  +
  The Home and Family
  We need to define our family as God’s word defines it.  We need to constantly be evaluating ourselves within a marriage to see if we are fulfilling our roles properly.  We need to be watchful for attacks against our home and family.  In fact, we need to be holding God’s word up to ourselves constantly as a father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, or whatever to see how we are measuring up and how we need to improve.
• Roles of men and woman (knowandmakeknown.wordpress.com)
  Men and woman have equal but very different roles. Our culture has a skewed look on relationships and the gender roles within them. It has become common in our culture for the woman to be the leader or initiator. It is common for woman to try and manipulate situations to get a guy to like or pursue her. It is normal for woman to initiate contact with man first. It is common for men to get by with being lazy or coward. It is common for men to be aggressive and abusive. I so easily forget where I cam from, where mankind came from. In the Garden of Eden we see the roles of man and woman and the consequences of not fulfilling those roles.
• We Are Equal. (cutedollars.wordpress.com)
  nowhere in all the creation accounts – from Biblical accounts to Greek stories of human creation to Charles Darwin’s theory of human evolution – was woman said to be inferior to the man.
  By Biblical accounts, when God created Adam and Eve, he made them one. Not one then half, but one as a whole, signifying equality.
  +
  To understand gender inequality and its inherent dangers, let’s take a look at the meaning of gender inequality.
  Gender inequality is the unequal treatment or discrimination of individuals based on their gender.
  The problems with gender inequality stem primarily from traditional gender role playing. Girls do house chores; boys do not cook; boys construct and build; girls internally decorate and beautify.
  +
  Psychological and financial dependence on others are the bedrock upon which domestic violence thrive. The importance of a career or means of livelihood for the woman, single or married, cannot be overemphasized.
• Women Othered in Genesis (genderandsexualitycore.wordpress.com)
  though she was created to be “his partner” she is instructed that he is the superior human being, and that her “desire shall be for [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (2:7-18; 3:16).
  +
  Eve can be construed as wiser than Adam for eating from the tree but it is also important to note that the default human being is male and that God is referred to throughout Genesis with male or gender neutral pronouns and never female pronouns. Most of the passages detailing genealogy focus on or only mention male names and Adam and Eve as a couple are often defined by the male in the relationship, referred to as “the man and his wife” rather than “the man and the woman” or “the woman and her husband.”
• “Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.” -George Carlin (muggleinconverse.wordpress.com)
  UN Women’s new ad campaign came to my attention several days ago. It made me sick to my stomach, disappointed, sad, and angry. Let’s see how it makes you feel.
  +
  Centuries of religious and societal standards have told us that women are less than men. Women are starting to show up in leadership positions, but they still feel the sting of patriarchy.
  +
• Urmila Home Manager – Dignifying Domestic Work (saath.wordpress.com)
  According to National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), In 2009-10, estimated total number of domestic worker in India is around 2.52 million out of this 2/3 reside in urban areas and 57% of them are women. So in the last 10 years there is almost 75% increase in domestic workers mostly accounted for by women. Domestic work has historically been viewed as the realm of the woman with crucial household chores continuing to be either being unpaid (if performed by a household’s women) or underpaid (if outsourced to a domestic worker). Though Gujarat as a State is booming economically, the informal sector and amongst these, domestic work is still a sector where there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Their situation remains the same as for many across India – no bargaining power, no leave, no legal access, sexual harassment, over worked, and underpaid. Moreover there is no platform through which these women can come together to demand their rights.