Recently The Atlantic ran an article crowing about the feminist victory at the Southern Baptist Convention. Southern Baptists Embrace Gender-Inclusive Language in the Bible*:
Last fall, the publishing arm of the 15-million member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) released the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). LifeWay Christian Stores, America’s largest Christian retailer, which is owned by the SBC, sells the translation at hundreds of its locations nationwide and touts it as a work of superior scholarship. But patrons are largely unaware that the denomination-approved translation is gender-inclusive.
Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) President Denny Burk was incensed at the accusation, explaining:
The CSB is not a gender-neutral translation of scripture, nor were the CSB translators trying to produce one. On the contrary, the translators intended to produce an accurate translation that faithfully renders what the authors of scripture intended to communicate. The CSB has admirably achieved this goal. The critiques of Merritt and Robinson in The Atlantic are completely off-base.
According to Burk this is a made up controversy. Burk contrasts this with the NIV translation, which he opposes for being gender inclusive. He also points to the Colorado Springs Guidelines as the gold standard for the Complementarian position on the right and proper way to replace masculine terms with gender neutral ones in Bible translations.
Dr. Wayne Grudem explained how the Colorado Springs guidelines came to be created in Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate:
Eventually Dr. James Dobson called a meeting of twelve people at Focus on the Family in late May, 1997. It included representatives from CBMW, World magazine, the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation, Zondervan (the distributor of the NIV), and the International Bible Society (the copyright holder for the NIV), and some others. But just before the meeting began, the IBS issued a statement saying they had “abandoned all plans” for changes in gender-related language in future editions of the NIV. So we thought the controversy was done and the NIV would remain faithful in its translation of gender-related language in the Bible.
Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV. They had publicly “abandoned all plans,” but privately they were going full-steam ahead.
The distinction Burk and other Complementarians are making is that there are good Complementarian gender neutral translations (CSB), and bad feminist gender neutral translations (NIV). The difference is that the Complementarian gender neutral changes are only made to make the Bible easier to understand, while the wily Committee on Bible Translation at NIV is caving to feminist pressure and sneaking in feminist changes.
But the line demarking feminism and complementarianism is much more blurred than Burk and others will admit. From the very beginning, the CBMW has tried to split the difference with feminists. In their founding book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, the CBMW presented a new interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:13, one that turned the Apostle Paul’s words upside down in order to allow women to preach**. They brought in Dr. Douglass Moo to write an entire chapter justifying this new feminist friendly interpretation of Paul’s prohibition on women preaching.
Twenty five years after Grudem and Piper brought him in to provide a new feminist friendly interpretation of 1 Tim 2:13, Dr. Moo is still on the cutting edge of scriptural interpretation. He is now the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV, chairman of the same committee that lied to Grudem in 1997***. Just like Burk defends the latest gender neutral CSB, Dr. Moo defends the latest gender neutral NIV. The whole controversy over the NIV gender neutral translation is made up. There is no feminist agenda, as the wording is only being changed to make it easier to understand:
Books At a Glance:
Okay, if I may, I’d like to turn to a question a bit more controversial and give you opportunity to respond. There has of course been a lot of noise made over the question of the NIV’s “gender neutral” translations, some people even contending that the CBT has an egalitarian agenda. Would you speak to this for us? And from a translator’s perspective, just what considerations give rise to this issue in the first place?Doug Moo:
Our decisions about gender are part and parcel of our fundamental translation philosophy: figure out what the text is saying, then find a way to express that meaning in natural, contemporary English…To put it simply: our “agenda” on the CBT is clear and single: to put the meaning of the Scriptures into accurate, natural, and contemporary English. We view our gender decisions in this context – and only in this context. To render expressions in the original text that clearly refer to human beings in general with words such as “man,” “he,” etc., is to betray our mandate to put the Bible into accurate English.
The fundamental lie that complementarians like Moo and Burk are telling themselves is that there is no feminist rebellion. They deny the envy and temptation to usurp that motivates feminism inside Christianity, and therefore pretend that all they are really doing in accommodating feminists is helping readers understand what the Bible really meant all along. But the feminists at The Atlantic and Slate know exactly what is going on, and they are ruining the whole charade.
*H/T Vox Day.
**The CBMW claims women can preach, but with nebulous restrictions. As John Piper explains, women like Beth Moore can preach to both women and men, so long as the men she is preaching to don’t see her as a leader: “there is a certain dynamic between maleness and femaleness that when a woman begins to assume an authoritative teaching role in your life the manhood of a man and the womanhood of a woman is compromised.”
***Dr. Moo joined the NIV Committee on Bible Translation in 1996, the year before Grudem says NIV publisher lied to him by claiming they had abandoned the project. Moo has therefore been involved with the gender neutral translation from the furtive (according to Grudem) beginning.
Another example of how the Radfems are actually more candid than the cuckservatives….
Changing The Word of the Lamb to virtue-signal. . .a new low for so-called Christians.
Pingback: It is all about clarity. | @the_arv
Dalrock:
Thanks for posting this. It’s important. I was in an argument with Hmm about it here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/the-first-commandment-with-a-promise-2/#comment-236841
I wanted to do some more research before I either reposted or retracted (The perils of believing anything that appears in the Atlantic, in a nutshell).
I suppose we’re both sorta right.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Anon:
The CONservatives have an amazingly great racket, tho. They tickle the ears of women, browbeat men so hard they don’t dare question their authority, reduce children to divorce-bastards, and ride the wave of stolen money into the loftiest reaches of upper-middle class life.
It’s called getting rich without doing any productive work. The problem is that they’re using culture and society as the land they till and harvest, and we’re all the poorer for it.
Boxer
“Wiley” brought back pleasant memories of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner cartoons. However, for what it’s worth, “wiley” should be “wily”.
[D: Thanks! Fixed.]
I doubt CBMW would be anything other defensive if they read this post, but Dalrock has laid it out in a way that is merciful and would be a good means for them to mature by. I would like it if they responded by saying, “Thanks Dalrock, we didn’t see our pride seeping out like that, but here are the reasons we think you would still like the changes based on linguistic standards.” That would be an edifying sharpening between brothers. However, because I see this more than a virtue signal, but a fluffing of tail feathers intended to shut up other believers, I don’t think a productive response from them could or would occur.
Another Strong, Independent, Single Mother murders her child: http://abc13.com/news/harris-co-mother-charged-with-killing-4-year-old-/2117165/
Deputies say there was a domestic dispute between the mother and her boyfriend on Sunday. Authorities are investigating if the incidents are connected.
Dear RPL:
Do you find it interesting, as I do, how the MSM treats the fathers of such children? In this case, they don’t even bother acknowledging he exists. Look at this crap…
The paternal family of Fredricka Allen spoke out to Eyewitness News. The little girl’s grandmother, Willia Allen, said her son first called her Sunday. He was worried about his daughter’s safety.
Unbelievable.
Boxer
I want to expand on my thought of mercy. I see this post as such because it would be easy to go directly to name calling or to just avoid CBMW entirely, but the way of isolation is the way of the world. Dalrock brought out a detail via the comparison of the two groups and by doing so engages, or enters,into the fray, and I see that as merciful, especially when I compare it to my response to them, which would be unloving, rude, rough and abrupt. Want to skip the engagement phase with CBMW leaders and go straight to overthrowing them, or a good beatdown with churchwide mocking.
The CBMW is a good example of when a group is moored to their conception of what Was & Is, rather than actually being tied to those concepts. They were always compromised, and they’re way, way too far invested to ever accept that they were wrong from the start.
As for the NIV and the groups associated with it, they’re one of my go-to examples of what selling your soul to the Devil looks like. They seem perfectly normal people, I imagine, but they’re the Dead and the Damned.
Pingback: Another Death by Single Mom – v5k2c2
I just noticed from Moo’s page at NIV that he joined the year before the event Grudem describes. So Moo was on the committee when they (according to Grudem) worked in secret on the gender neutral translation the NIV claimed to have abandoned. I’ve added another footnote.
Perhaps the time is approaching for the Brethren on the Reformed side of the aisle to consider Byzantium. I realize that for most of them Rome is a non starter, hence why Orthodoxy might be a more palatable choice. If the SBC is succumbing to this, I can only imagine what the “seeker friendly” Evangelical churches are doing.
“Moo.” How apt.
According to Christianity Today, the SBC opted for “optimal equivalence” rather than a literal word for word translation. In a nutshell, this means the translators gave what they believed to be the thoughts of the writer in some instances rather than a straight word for word for word translation of what the original writer actually penned. There are numerous problems with this approach:
1) The Revelation of St. John is rather clear that anyone who adds to or takes from the words of the book is in deep trouble.
2) Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass away until all things were fulfilled.
3) Imagine you are interviewed for a newspaper article and ignore Vox Day’s advice. You give written answers to a reporter’s questions, and then discover that what he prints is not what you said. The words are close, but a few are slightly adjusted in order or phrasing and give a meaning other than what you conveyed. The reporter defends himself by saying he simply printed what your actual thoughts were in a clearer way than you presented them yourself, and really it’s pretty close to what you actually said. This is what the SBC has done with the word of God.
4) It demonstrates a lack of faith in the word of God. A strict, literal translation of God’s word is not good enough. The SBC feels the need to polish things up around the edges so that it can actually do the work God intended. I believe we used to call that the sin of pride.
5) The King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard and some others are strict, word for word translations. A few discrepancies exist due to slight differences in the Textus Receptus and the Textus Sianaticus. None of these discrepancies involve the gender of nouns or pronouns, and all of these translations have served to reach millions with the Gospel of Christ.
“The fundamental lie that complementarians like Moo and Burk are telling themselves is that there is no feminist rebellion.”
This would explain why these men didn’t blink at the idea of making guidelines for translating the Bible ‘correctly’ after 2,000 years of translating the Bible. But it’s very hard to believe they honestly don’t recognize and approve of feminism when their entire careers are dedicated to supporting it.
If they were behaving randomly then they would have done something very patriarchal by now.
Actually no, it doesn’t explain why these men didn’t blink at the idea of making guidelines for translating the Bible ‘correctly’ after 2,000 years of translating the Bible. There’s absolutely no reason we need new translation guidelines, particularly guidelines that contribute to androgyny at a time when Western society is more androgynous than ever.
They know the evil they do and justify it by saying they aren’t twisting Scripture badly enough to make a difference. That’s Phase Two.
Also from Christianity today: “Doug Moo, a Wheaton College professor who led the translation team for the NIV’s 2011 revision, has studied the rise of generic and non-gendered words to replace masculine ones by analyzing modern English usage.”
Here the snake eats its own tail. Moo and his filthy ilk are engaged in circular reasoning. Until quite recently standard English required the use of the masculine in non-specific singular pronouns. The MLA worked tirelessly to do away with this, and has largely succeeded in most academic institutions; they did this not for the sake of clarity, however, but for the express purpose of advancing feminism. This has actually led to language becoming less rather than more clear. Moo is arguing here for chasing along after the same cultural Marxists who have butchered the English language and adopting their pronoun preferences because it is now “modern English.” Hence we must become more clear by aping the destruction of clarity in our own language. Using Moo’s reasoning I can find no defense against the mandatory inclusion of thirty-seven gender fluid categories in our next round of Biblical translation.
Dear Gunner Q:
It remains amazing to see the mental gymnastics required to justify these endless rewritings of a simple book. Note that the King James Version is considered (arguably) the most important text in the English language, and has been for centuries.
The entire book is written plainly, and is easy to understand, even for a dummox like me. No “translator,” or other guru, is required to interpret the words therein.
Boxer
Wake up Christianity, the Matrix has you.
And I got so much grief for suggesting that the Feminine Imperative would literally, and fundamentally change the faith to its liking. The Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit, here it is in black and white, and it’s the ‘men’ of the church who are making sure of it.
Uncuck your church.
All of you Protestants should really come home to the one true church. Roman Catholics have a rich conservative Biblical interpretation rooted in Canon Law … oh, wait.
http://www.all.org/pope-francis-vatican-politicos-err/?CategoryId=1
@Okrahead
I don’t think that is strictly speaking what the problem is. Translation is difficult, and sometimes word for word translations don’t best convey the meaning. The problem is the lie, pretending that this is not being done in response to massive pressure from feminists, and claiming instead that it is really all about a quest for clarity.
As you rightly point out:
Both Burk and Moo are using the same rationalization, even if CSB is somewhat less pozzed than the NIV in this regard. It is striking how similar their rationalizations are. I don’t think I could tell you which was which if you pulled them out and showed them to me blind. I’m not sure the men themselves would know who wrote which rationalization.
From the same CT article, quoting Rick Mansfield, “No pastor today worth listening to is going to stand up in front of a congregation and address them as ‘brothers’ (or worse, ‘brethren’ as in the NASB) if women are present,” said Mansfield.
Two things here: 1) Adelphoi was used by Greek writers in the same way traditional English writers used the masculine as a default pronoun. If you wanted to specify a sister, you would say adelphe. Of course, I could just be making that up, so look it up yourself if you believe it matters.
2) Mansfield, quoted by approval by CT, says that any pastor who does uses the literal translation of the word of God in addressing the church should be labelled as not worth listening to. This appears to me, at least, as a clear call for schism against pastors who do not use “gender inclusive” pronouns in their teaching.
Modern Christianity is in need of a Martin Luther….a man who had the courage to properly spot the dangers of Judaism on the church.
Evangelical Christian culture wants to remove men from the language, the doctrine, the culture, and ultimately the faith:
https://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/
The church is openly hostile to men. There is nothing for men in the church, even the faith is feminized now. I called it here:
https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/30/losing-my-religion/
Regarding my comments about Moo, above: Moo is advocating that Biblical translators ape modern English for the sake of clarity and ease of understanding. At the same time, modern English is becoming losing clarity as its the languages purported guardians in the MLA, APA and various academies pursue a feminist/Marxist agenda. Hence Moo and his herd are in point of fact jettisoning clarity for the sake of conformity to modern feminist/Marxist cant. His actions are in point of fact directly opposed to his purported purpose. A strict, literal translation begets clarity, men substituting their suppositions of a writer’s intent for his exact words begets confusion.
Rollo, just because you can see the problem does not mean you have the correct solution.
We are doomed.
And another thing…. As already noted, the SBC condemned the NIV for its “gender inclusive” language. As quoted in Christianity Today, defenders of the CSB, published by the SBC, are also calling for the exclusion of pastors who use the KJV/NKJV/ESV etc. This leaves ONLY the CSB as a Bible endorsed by the SBC as not too liberal (NIV/TNIV) or too conservative (KJV/ESV/etc) but “just right”. Pretty soon we may find the nation’s largest Protestant denomination requiring its pastors use only its Bible and recommending its members do the same. I find myself wondering how much money would be involved in that decision.
Benfromtexas,
You have not yet resisted to bloodshed striving against sin. And no self respecting man from the Alamo state should whine like that.
It was Jorge Luis Borges who wrote a story which proposed that there was only one book – The Quixote – and that every other book was merely a translation and repeated translation thereof and so badly done that it became Crime and Punishment (and anything else you like). I envisage that one day following further revisions The Bible becomes The Kama Sutra.
This is exactly why the feminists are constantly pushing for girl priests in the Catholic Church. The all male priesthood that Christ established is not only an affront to their modernist mind, but a firewall against burning down the whole Church.
@ Rollo Tomassi
The church is openly hostile to men. There is nothing for men in the church, even the faith is feminized now.”
The only thing left for them is fear and shame; fear of genuine masculinity, and shame for those who have the temerity to seek it.
That fount of orthodoxy and adherence to the one true faith, National Public Radio, has also weighed in with measured approval for the new translation. Their article begins, “Faced with declining membership among millennials, the Southern Baptists are seeking to modernize their language. The denomination has adopted a new Bible with more gender-neutral terms.”
Reading this, I can deduce a few things: 1) Either these millennials are too dumb to read the NKJV/NASV or 2) They object to the wording of the aforementioned translations (or at least the SBC imagines that they object to the wording and that is why they are leaving the SBC).
They also interview semi-influential alleged millennial possible Christian Jonathan Merritt for the article, with this choice example:
“GJELTEN: These very changes, however, were rejected by the Southern Baptists just a few years ago. And Jonathan Merritt cites other examples of modernizing steps. Women are gradually being moved into leadership positions, and just last year, the Southern Baptist Convention rejected any display of the Confederate flag. That move was promoted in part by Jonathan Merritt’s father, himself a former Southern Baptist president.
MERRITT: If you take all of those shifts together, I think you have to admit that the Southern Baptist Convention has been evolving on a range of issues that were, even five or 10 years ago, not up for discussion.”
The only thing missing is a list of issues on which Merritt sees his denomination evolving.
Dear Okrahead:
Because becoming indistinguishable from trashy pop culture and mainstream media is really the way to get folks to wake up early on Sunday morning.
Nothing rewards attendance like providing all the same messages the participants would get if they didn’t bother.
Boxer
And another one, if I may. The defender of fundamental Christianity, Slate magazine, also approves of the new translation “moving in the right direction.” Specifically, Mizz Ruth Graham speaks ex cathedra to tell us, “Debates over Bible translation are debates about theology and linguistics, and they can be dustier than the valley of dry bones. But scholarly nit-picking can obscure what’s really at stake here: interpretations relating to gender roles, marriage, sexuality, the character of God, and how readers see themselves—or not—in the Bible’s story”.
So the end goal is gender roles, marriage, sexuality and the character of God… unless you call out Moo’s herd, in which case its really just a few pronouns, nothing to see here, move along folks.
OT but not really :
http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/technology/2017/05/there-anything-wrong-perfect-sex-rise-virtual-reality-porn
VR Sex has grown 250% in the last 12 months, even though it is still very early (clunky, not hi-res, expensive hardware, too little content available as of yet).
It will be hilarious to see cuckservatives railing against absent men about their use of VR porn…. until cuckservative men start using it too and we see fewer of these cartoonish voices.
Complimentary have always ever been ‘Christian’ which want the appearance of adhering to the word of God while in escense following feminism so as not to offend the world. It is deceptive. The feminists are less dishonest. Complimemtarians love and fear the world more than God and stand condemned.
The only way is patriarchy. 1 Cor 11
Also, for that matter, the translation of the King James Version was undertaken by no fewer than fifty scholars. Additional scores of scholars worked on the NKJV, ASV, NASV and ESV. Yet apparently none of these translations is sufficient, for they fail to follow millennial pronoun preferences. This is the key… why are all these translations inadequate, and what will be gained when dispense with their use?
Pingback: It is all about clarity. | Reaction Times
@Okrahead,
Thanks for your inightful comments on this very important topic.
Pingback: Mistrust the media. Doubt the translators. [Lk 20] | Dark Brightness
Boxer @ 12:31 pm:
“Because becoming indistinguishable from trashy pop culture and mainstream media is really the way to get folks to wake up early on Sunday morning.”
I remember them trying Sunday Morning Coffeeshops.
@ okrahead, everyone
I don’t even think half of it is about “satisfying gender pronouns” and feminism.
It’s a money grab. How much do you make from selling another 10 million copies of the Bible?
The “update” is just another excuse to sell tons of books just like the updated college edition textbooks that change a few words here and there and release another edition. $40 bucks on Amazon.
You sell 10 million copies at $40 and generate $400 million in revenue.
Always follow the moolah.
“Faced with declining membership among millennials, the Southern Baptists are seeking to modernize their language. ”
The appeasement approach has worked for exactly no one ever, and kowtowing to the SJWs only accelerates a death spiral. Who could truly believe it’s the masculine pronouns and not a general spiritual malaise among millennials that’s drive down attendances?
They’re attempting to appeal to people who haven’t the slightest interest in their message, even in its debased form. If there truly are 15 million SBC members (they claimed 16 million in 1997), well, there won’t be for long.
FWIW, the American Bible Society sells paperback NIVs for $4.99
It has been my observation that when a woman seeks to revise God’s word, she does so in the attempt to get out from under the authority of Man. When a man does so, it is in the attempt to get out from under the authority of God.
We are living out George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.
In case you were wondering………..feminists translate to the antagonist pigs in that book.
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:2; kjv)
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12; kjv)
Keeping in mind that, in the Old English of the KJV, ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ were contractions for ‘human’ and ‘humankind’. Remember also that it was stated upthread the the KJV was translated accurately.
Was Adam a man? A woman? Both?
You sell 10 million copies at $40 and generate $400 million in revenue.
This is why the absence of red-pill entrepreneurs is an indictment of sorts….
Even if you sell blue-pill crap, but keep the money; that would be ok for a red-pill entrepreneur, as you are draining the twats and cucks.
I mean, Fireproof took $2M to produce and grossed $40M. This book grossed a lot.
We can begrudge the peddlers, or we can compete with them and at least line our own pockets while draining cuckservative pockets, while secretly holding red-pill views.
“We can begrudge the peddlers, or we can compete with them and at least line our own pockets while draining cuckservative pockets, while secretly holding red-pill views.”
Won’t you need Pastor Bob’s (or should I say his wife’s?) endorsement to sell books, DVDs and movie tickets?
Deep Strength @ 2:12 pm
“It’s a money grab. How much do you make from selling another 10 million copies of the Bible?”
I can’t see it. Organizations like the Gideons will give you a free Bible if you ask. Also, convincing prospective customers to suspect the validity of your product in order to create marketing “buzz” is like tricking health inspectors into linking your company’s food with botulism in order to grab free headlines. It’ll help your competitors more than you.
…
Anon @ 3:29 pm:
“We can begrudge the peddlers, or we can compete with them and at least line our own pockets while draining cuckservative pockets…”
Draining their pockets is what I do every time I sleep in on Sunday morning. Your way sounds like work.
Dear Dalrock, Okrahead, et. al.:
Here’s Kate Shellnutt (lol these fuck’n names, man) to school us all, in an article entitled “Gender Inclusivity is Biblical”…
http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/june/gender-inclusive-bible-translation-csb-southern-baptists.html
The authors’ repeated excuse, that we need to remove the “thees and thous” (their terms, though I’m paraphrasing) does nothing to explain why the new version of the bible is being rewritten to introduce sexual ambiguity where the meaning was previously very clear.
Again, there’s nothing in the KJV that is difficult to understand. Little Mormon kids read it (though we don’t consider it divinely inspired, it’s still good advice) and we all seem to know what it means at seven and eight years old. A hundred years ago, it was the standard reader for children throughout the English speaking world.
Boxer
The SBC has become blind. If you look at the photos of the men leading it, they are all too often soy-faced, soft handed men. Such men cannot build a civilization, or a church; and as we can see now, they can’t even maintain what they have been given.
Can’t remember who I stole this from but here’s some enlightening info
GunnerQ,
Draining their pockets is what I do every time I sleep in on Sunday morning. Your way sounds like work.
You are withholding new payments, yes. That is Step 1. Most men here do that.
But you are not separating them from the money they already have. That is Step 2.
Remember, a fool* and his money are soon parted. Make sure that parting is to YOU.
*Fool = Cuckservative.
There are a number of easy money schemes that are available right now. For instance, George Soros and the Open Society are paying people 20 bucks an hour to go protest. Why aren’t decent American college students doing this? Go collect that money, then when you get to the protest area, act especially dopey for the cameras or otherwise do little things that make the protestors look bad.
Another opportunity (long con) is becoming a male feminist or otherwise anti-red-pill speaker. That goon Hugo Schwyzer made tons of money doing this, and he was able to keep up the charade even while he was being a total degenerate, raping young women, etc. A disciplined Christian dude who wanted to do that would have made a great success out of it.
Go on a speaking tour as a male feminist. Tip off a few of us as to what you’re doing, and we’ll write blog posts denouncing you as a traitor. Get that money and send some of it to people like Dalrock. lol
Boxer
RichardP,
I have heard it preached (a while back) that Adam originally had both the male and female aspects in himself, based on the verse you note.
I am not sure if I buy that, since it says that God made a helpmeet for him, not the God too part of her characteristics out of him. He donated a rib, but that is not the same thing.
The church is openly hostile to men. There is nothing for men in the church, even the faith is feminized now.
Eastern Orthodoxy, while not perfect, is much less feminized than any Western Christian church is. Okra, I believe, is Orthodox, as am I, as is Scott as is anonymous_ng. Come and see us some time, Rollo. Eastern Orthodoxy is like the red pill of Christianity in some ways.
This is exactly why the feminists are constantly pushing for girl priests in the Catholic Church. The all male priesthood that Christ established is not only an affront to their modernist mind, but a firewall against burning down the whole Church.
Yes. Again, not that there aren’t feminist priests (there are), but it’s hugely better than having women in the priesthood — that quickly leads to all manner of progressivist heresy walking its way right into the church, as we can see from the Protestant churches that have instituted this.
“’It is a fundamental belief of the Church that baptism can only be received once’, Synod Secretary General William Nye said in a statement. ‘There is therefore no possibility of the Synod approving a form of service for the re-baptism of transgendered persons in their new gender who have already been baptised.’
However, Nye also added that there is ‘no legal or doctrinal difficulty about a baptised transgendered person re-affirming their baptismal vows’ under a new name.” ~ Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/19/church-england-head-suggests-transgender-christians-can-re-christened-undergoing-sex-change/
Looked for Eastern Orthodox churches in the DFW area and came across:
http://www.saintpeterorthodox.org/
Clearly note the exact same thing. One slide showed to women in frocks, which was unexpected.
I would be all for it, except that I hold the Scriptures above tradition, even one that is better than what we have now in some ways.
Why would someone want to be rebaptized with a different gender Oscar? Would that be for someone who proudly displays their baptismal certificate and wants their latest name on it? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
(Though it also doesn’t make sense how someone could claim to follow Christ and be transgendered, so that is a problem too.)
Looked for Eastern Orthodox churches in the DFW area and came across:
Yeah that’s actually “western rite” orthodox — basically these are mostly trad Anglicans who came into communion with Eastern Orthodoxy and kept (most of) their Anglican-ish rite. Although there are some of those kinds of parishes here and there, they are definitely not mainstream *Eastern* Orthodoxy. In Dallas, I’d try one of the churches in the Russian tradition which uses English in services, like this one here ( https://www.stseraphim.org/cathedral.html ) or here ( http://www.orthodox.net/ ). No women in frocks, to be honest.
The scripture/tradition stuff is a problem, and getting into that issue is well beyond the scope of this blog. I will say that my fiancee was in that same mindset when I met her several years ago, and she’s been Orthodox now for a few years, so there are always possibilities of new understandings. My point to Rollo, however, is that he ought to look at all forms of Christianity, even as are available in the US, before making blanket statements about Christianity which are not across the board accurate.
Historically the SBC has followed a five solas theology, of which sola scriptura is the first. Baptist doctrine was at one time largely rooted in Calvinism, although many Baptists, including the SBC, have shied away from Calvin. Despite this however, the SBC still maintains that it is a sola scriptura church. This leads me to wonder whether in embracing this new translation the Baptists will move towards the Methodist view of prima scriptura instead, or whether they will simply continue to change the wording of their personal interpretation Bible and claim sola scriptura while changing the word to meet their doctrinal changes. https://infogalactic.com/info/Sola_scriptura
@ BillyS says:
June 20, 2017 at 7:36 pm
“Why would someone want to be rebaptized with a different gender Oscar? Would that be for someone who proudly displays their baptismal certificate and wants their latest name on it? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
(Though it also doesn’t make sense how someone could claim to follow Christ and be transgendered, so that is a problem too.)”
Homosexuality and transgenderism are symptoms of hatred of God and the order He gave nature.
Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Demanding to be baptized is – ironically – another symptom of that hatred. Essentially, they’re saying, “your rules don’t apply to me. I’ll do what I want, and you will accommodate me!” They’re petulant toddlers throwing a fit and destroying themselves in the process.
Novaseeker,
Eastern Orthodoxy, while not perfect, is much less feminized than any Western Christian church is.
This is only because countries that practice Eastern Orthodoxy either are not democracies or have only become so recently. So cumulative rot is far less at this time.
Roosh wrote at length about how quickly countries like Poland, etc. were swallowing Western ‘feminism’.
@Frank K
”I realize that for most of them Rome is a non starter, hence why Orthodoxy might be a more palatable choice”
The only issue is their theology is wrong. So no thank you. Stick with the PCA and OPC.
@okrahead
The New King James is just as bad. Alot of muddying the waters by the translators like the NIV.
“Roosh wrote at length about how quickly countries like Poland, etc. were swallowing Western ‘feminism’.”
I don’t mean to nit-pick, but Poland is Roman Catholic. As is Hungary, and at least nominally, as are the other Central European countries (Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia). The Eastern European countries are Orthodox, less democratic, and closer to Russia than the EU. That may end up being to their benefit.
Though as far as the US is concerned, it could just be that we didn’t get near as many Orthodox Christians as Roman Catholics in mid to late-19th/early-20th century immigration influx.
I am so glad that I left the Southern Baptist Church. I realized that they act with much piety and claim to believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. Yet, this is the very same denomination that split from the Baptist Church over the issue of slavery. The SBC justified slavery by using mental gymnastics to interpret what the Bible clearly said to mean the opposite. The same thing happened during the Jim Crow era. That tradition is still very much alive in this denomination and it is scary because they can and will justify anything. They are caving in on every major social issue and are so hypocritical in saying one thing but meaning another. What makes the SBC dangerous is that while other denominations just plain reject what the Bible says, these twist scriptures very ably and thus change the Bible! In this case, they are now going in and rewriting it. There are warnings about this in the very same Book that they are changing.
Because becoming indistinguishable from trashy pop culture and mainstream media is really the way to get folks to wake up early on Sunday morning.
Nothing rewards attendance like providing all the same messages the participants would get if they didn’t bother.
Yup. Exactly. It also offends churchians to no end when you point this out to them (it actually is more valuable coming from someone who is a non-believer).
Thing is, they really don’t want to seperate themselves from the trashy culture of the World. That would mark them as “different” and maybe even open them up to ridicule, or, God forbid, persecution, and that’s just soooooooooooo Third World and First Century. Besides, there’s money that can be made from pandering to the culture, and that sure beats waiting for a “heavenly reward,” which also soooooooooo uncool and yestercentury…
BillyS asked:
Why would someone want to be rebaptized with a different gender Oscar? Would that be for someone who proudly displays their baptismal certificate and wants their latest name on it? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
(Though it also doesn’t make sense how someone could claim to follow Christ and be transgendered, so that is a problem too.)
General Rule of Thumb when addressing anything that the Anglican “church” does: consider it to be a parody play, a satire like what you what you would see on a classic BBC sitcom. DO NOT take it as serious Christianity, which it is not, never has been, and never will be. It’s akin to mistaking pig latin as a dialect of Classical Latin.
Because becoming indistinguishable from trashy pop culture and mainstream media is really the way to get folks to wake up early on Sunday morning.
Why should the Sunday Morning Nightclub be anything other than that? As the Saturday Night revelry ended just 3-4 hours earlier, the Sunday Morning Nightclub is a mere continuation of the proceedings after a brief intermission for RedBulls.
@feeriker
Leviticus 10:1-3
”Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized 1 fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’ ” And Aaron held his peace.”
If failure to treat God as holy and to glorify him resulted in immediate execution. How much more the church that regards him with contempt.
All trees that do not produce fruit will be cut down. And every church that does not repent has its candlestick taken away.
The increasingly loose use of language in the modern translations is one of many reasons why I switched over to only using the KJV + NASB about five years ago. But more recently I switched over to the King James only position.
The use of thee, thou, thy and ye have to do with accurately translating the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person pronouns of the Hebrew and Greek. Modern English loses this precision.
Hey, if any of you are open minded enough, have a look into the KJO position, and then come to your own conclusions.
Novaseeker,
Thanks for the clarification.
I would agree. I was just noting why I am highly unlikely to make the leap. I grew up in the RCC and only left it (while attending both RCC and Protestant services for quite a while) because I saw too many things inconsistent with the Scriptures. I can’t see changing that now. Not arguing it, just noting that is where I am coming from.
I believe I would not be allowed to remarry there as well, based on some things posted in the discussions here in the past, though I am not sure remarriage of any kind is likely for me anyway, so that is probably not as big of a concern.
Okrahead,
They will probably decide the Scriptures mean what they want them to mean, rather than conforming themselves to what they say. That is unfortunately far too common today. I at least admit I am incorrect if I ever do that and I seek to realign myself….
I did think Southern Baptists were more Armenian than Calvanist, though their convictions of “once saved, always saved” would be more Calvanist I suppose, though not the “only who God calls” part of course.
Oscar,
I am still not clear the value of being rebaptized, but it makes some sense if it is merely an attempt to ruin the act (baptism) rather than achieve something.
I never could get into the NASB. I like the NKJV (as can be seen when I post Scripture here and on my blog). I have not seen the major claimed errors, though I am sure some are there. Elizabethan English is not holy however….
The SBC has been worldly for a long long time now. This is just the stink of a dead corpse.
There are longstanding historical streams of Baptists in both the ‘Armenian’ and ‘Calvanist’ tradition. But its not the most important issue. Find a church that doesn’t worship women; or start one.
A lot of talk but no full realization that feminism is a tool of Satan. Plain and simple, Feminism will be the ultimate death of all who embrace it. Proverbs 31 showed women as capable and worthy of respect when they applied themselves. Feminism is akin to proverbs 5 – association will kill those who embrace it.
@1 Jess
Feminism has won
Most Christian men want to be feminists and want to be house husbands or think it is manly to have a breadwinner wife.
https://cbmw.org/topics/leadership-2/work-should-husbands-make-more-money-than-wives/
( he does not ask, what time of wife who looks after the home and kids can also outearn her husband)
They are even rewriting history- apparently Gender roles did not exist prior to industrialization!!
https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-keeping-place-jen-pollock-michel/
Now a man expecting his wife to look after the home has to repent of his sin!
look at the advice for young men, now we are told to look for ambitious women,not one who will care for her home and husband.
young women are told look for men who are good cooks and clean to show how much of a servant they are.
its flipped!
Thanks Dalrock
been reading you for a while
Every post is a winner
[D: Thanks! Welcome.]
I plan to check out Eastern Orthodox churches in the area soon. Maybe the plebs and women need statues of Mary to not go off the rails. Even thou Mary was a sinful human in scripture and no where does it hint that the dead have a form of omniscience that they could hear any requests on Earth.
One Anglican church plant I visited was interesting but the pastor still came across as more feminine then I wanted; some TRT and lifting would help him out.
One fallback is the Reformed Episcopal Church from 1873, but it only had 13,600 members in 2009 (maybe that is a good thing being small); their traditional hymns were more masculine then anything I had heard before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Episcopal_Church
Dear bdash77:
Don’t be overly pessimistic. Guys like Marx and Hegel remind us that every ideology carries within it internal contradictions. As the ideology scales up, the contradictions magnify, eventually causing the entire structure to collapse. Feminism is nothing special, and it’s in its later stages right now.
Men (Christian or not) are hard-wired to want to raise up a family, be a provider, and get the respect due them for their hard work. The guys you see today are pretenders, who feel they have no other choice, and fear shame if they dissent. That’s all.
Rejoice! It’s all coming apart.
Boxer
In Dallas, I’d try one of the churches in the Russian tradition which uses English in services…
My experience with American Orthodox (an offshoot of Russian) has been that they are much less feminized than any other denominations (NAXALT notwithstanding). However, they don’t actively resist feminist influence and consequently are slowly adopting its poisons. The Father’s Day homily for one of them included the obligatory family-traumatized-by-Dad’s-failures story. But that same parish on a different occasion had a sermon that instructed wives to obey their husbands, which I’ve never heard before or since in any church.
If you want to go to a church, Eastern Orthodox is a better bet in my experience, but YMMV.
@BDash77
The bitter irony here is the glaring contradiction between what FEMINISM wants, and what individual WOMEN want.
WOMEN don’t want men who earn less than they themselves earn. They are always on the outlook for a man who earns a high income.
WOMEN certainly don’t want men who clean the house, change diapers, run the soccer carpool in place of men earning high income.
At the end of the day, few if any women want the mantle of RESPONSIBILITY placed on their shoulders. Women want above all else……..OPTIONS. Responsibility is a wet blanket on their preferred OPTIONS.
Women who have a spouse who earns less generally are unhappy with that arrangement.
Women all too readily see THEIR money going towards supporting someone who isn’t ‘carrying their weight’. Cleaning & dusting won’t close that shortfall in earnings to placate the feminine mind.
Honestly, how many women do you hear stating ‘I’m looking for a guy who will cook, clean, & take care of the kids/household’.
BULLSHIT.
Women are always looking for a man with an earnings potential at least on par with theirs.
@ BillyS says:
June 21, 2017 at 1:28 am
“I am still not clear the value of being rebaptized, but it makes some sense if it is merely an attempt to ruin the act (baptism) rather than achieve something.”
That’s exactly it. There is no value to it. It’s an attempt to destroy something that is holy. It’s like Antiochus Epiphanes riding a horse into the Jewish temple and sacrificing a pig on the altar.
I remember 1980, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority was credited with helping Reagan win the presidency.
Falwell, a Southern Baptist, gave me the impression that Southern Baptists were highly conservative, politically and theologically. I guess no longer.
After reading this, my faith becomes even more divided.
@Deathwriter,
Divided how? These problems are nothing new except in scale. Christ Himself endured a “Church” that pretended to study his teachings endlessly yet couldn’t recognize their own God when He waved hello.
My faith is strengthened, albeit cynically, when the Same Old Stuff keeps coming up just like Scripture predicts.
Too many versions of the bible floating around. I’ve always trusted the kjv but I’ve read the niv version.
I’m torn from thw validated the text. As for faith, I’ve thought about the jewish and muslim faith as more genuine than christianity.
June 21, 2017 at 8:09 am, Boxer (replying to bdash77‘s lament that “Feminism has won”) wrote:
Boxer, I respect your observational skills a great deal, but I just don’t see this. What specific recent trends and events lead you to hold that view?
Thanks,
Yac-Yac
Given WordPress’ HTML tag bamboozlement that somewhat distorted the mark-up of my above post — For clarity’s sake: I am referring to your “Rejoice! It’s all coming apart” comment — I agree with your use of that analytical framework.
Yac-Yac
Dear Yac-Yac:
When you start looking at it, it becomes obvious. You don’t think all this feminism stuff is really sustainable, do you?
Without a wild and fantastic retooling of society (the end of central banks, adoption of AI, mechanization of production, unlimited new sources of energy and food, etc.) we’re going to run out of money and brains before we pay the bill for the tens-of-millions of stupid single moms, who want to increase their own purchasing power by continuing to squeeze out bastards.
As fifth-horsemen and others have pointed out, even if society evolved to the point where limited energy and resources were poured into womens’ collective lap, new apertures would arise (VR porn, etc.) spontaneously, and faster than they could be addressed.
There’s also a very convincing application of Marxist historical materialism which predicts an intensification of solidarity among men. This seems counterintuitive, until you realize that what we’re doing now, on this blog, would have seemed like an impossible pipe-dream to anyone in the 1980s. (Men getting together to criticize women? What? What?)
Social and economic forces which were previously used to atomize men, so that they never discussed female misbehavior, are now driving men together in places like this comment section.
Feminism is yesterday’s movement. It’s already dying. The best thing we can do is to work to build parallel institutions that can assume dominance, as the feminist institutions continue to collapse.
Best,
Boxer
@ Boxer
Well said, however the aforementioned institutions are not going down without a fight. They still firmly believe in their moral superiority.
Feminism ideology ends quite abruptly the split-second the world has difficulty getting oil, the lifeblood of our technological society, out of the ground on a high density energy yield basis.
I.E. it has been decades since an oil discovery that yielded a 30:1 ratio. (Burn 1 barrel to extract 30)
Currently, that yield ratio appears to have already entered into single digit territory, and falling. Fracked oil has terrible EROEI ratios.
I like to refer to ‘Oil’ as ‘Man in a Can’.
It is the concentrated equivalent of hundreds of man hours in every single barrel.
I fully expect we will know the sorted truth by 2030; as many analysts believe sliding down the ‘backside’ of Hubbert’s Peak will give society a terrible reckoning.
As Dalrock has pointed out……”feminism is a massive pumping operation…….turn those pumps off even for a second, and reality comes flooding back”.
Without adequate energy (i.e. oil) in the world, the hum of those pumps will be silenced for good.
DeathWriter @ June 21, 2017 at 4:59 pm:
“Too many versions of the bible floating around. I’ve always trusted the kjv but I’ve read the niv version.”
I grew up on the 1980s NIV and turned out fine. Different translations arise only because of linguistic drift, which is normal, and the translation’s purpose. Some are intended for accuracy, others for readability. The NIV’s original purpose was to be easily re-translated into other languages to facilitate missionary work, hence the “international” in the name.
Maliciious efforts to twist Scripture rarely gain traction. God is real and will not allow His Word to be perverted. He will not allow us to be deceived like that.
“As for faith, I’ve thought about the jewish and muslim faith as more genuine than christianity.”
Eh? All three religions exist, therefore all three are equally genuine. Christianity is suffering an unprecedented cuck-up at the moment but Muslims call that business as usual. Then they murder each other. Jews are probably the “winning” team for now, if that’s what you’re looking for, and they’re apparently neck-deep in selling out the world to the Devil, which is not what you’re looking for.
Christ is your safest bet. Acknowledge you’re damaged and evil, accept His offer, then try your best knowing you’ll be provided for no matter what. Neither Muslim nor Jew can offer you that.
@casey
It is awesome that there are so many people here who do not agree with feminism.
I would however differ and say that the Church and Women wants feminism.
Most articles/books on manliness now involve some advice on how men should do domestic duties, cook, wash clothes etc as that is the mark of real servant manliness
It used to be men served by providing, protecting and leading.
Women want these men, otherwise why would Pastors be promoting this nonsense?
At our churches, the young women clearly state that they want either a Godly house husband or men who will live in in androgynous same sex marriage with them.
No churches train young women to be helpmeets or wives.
Mike Huckabee is a Christian, his son-in law is a house daddy and his daughter works, all claim to be believers in Jesus
Most Christian websites and books, promote this, they want to teach that gender is irrelevant
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/book-review-keeping-place
TGC now believes Gender roles did not exist till industrialization … apparently men and women swapped roles and were all gender neutral prior so gender roles are not exactly biblical….
Dalrock has addressed most of them
Christian women do not want to follow the bible and be Godly wives anymore, they want to be MEN and compete with MEN
CBMW thinks this is fine
https://cbmw.org/topics/leadership-2/work-should-husbands-make-more-money-than-wives/
( what godly wife who is a worker at home has enough time and energy to out earn her husband…- unless her husband ? They do not address that at all)
http://www.communicatejesus.com/5-challenges-christian-men/
” Men have greater demand on their time” because men are now supporting their wife’s careers by doing more childcare and housework- no rebuke to the wives, for not supporting her husband- no only praise for men living in androgynous relationships with their wives…
This is what most Christians teach, In fact we are taught it is a SIN to expect a wife to run the home because it means you are not serving
Most Christian marriages look no different to feminist marriages.
It is so sad
How those more educated than I AM in the word of God are able to succumb to feminism is crazy
“Accurate, natural English” eh?
This new bible tells us that Jesus wants His disciples to become “Fishers of persons”. Psalm 1 blesses the “one who does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly…”
Everywhere in the new NIV, the word “man” is scrubbed out and replaced in the second person, much like newsreaders when they say, “twelve people including two women and a child were killed…”
The translators sneakily claim that the word “man” meant all humanity. If do, why do they think their readers don’t see and understand that?
Basically, the translators, like the rest of society, want gender inclusion to mean the cleansing of malehood, just like an ethnic cleanse.
Judgement Day is going to look bad when they get snookered for tampering with the untamperable Word of God. It isn’t theirs to change.
June 21, 2017 at 9:01 pm, Boxer very kindly replied to my question.
Thanks, Boxer.
I think I better understand (maybe) where we disagree: you write, “[…] as the feminist institutions continue to collapse.”
The way I see it, Societal Institutions of great vintage and vital importance (church, family, industry, marketplace, education system, sound government) are collapsing with them, and while not entirely because of them (e.g., off-shoring of Ohio & Pennsylvania & etc.’s factories in the 1980s & 1990s wasn’t driven by the Female Imperative, just greed & stupidity, and families suffered …), certainly at least in considerable part because of them, as is discussed at great length in this blog (and similar ones), e.g. the collapse in Family Formation among Millennials.
Maybe you see it that way too, or maybe not.
But I don’t see this (Universal, Unquestionable Feminism in law, politics, religion & culture) ending without something very like societal disintegration as a corollary, as it is all now too intertwined with everything else. Yes, the termites will be gone after the house is fully burned down, but the house will be gone, too.
(Actually, that’s a terrible analogy, unless maybe the termites are also among the arsonists.)
So, while, yes, we are at, or are approaching, Peak Feminism, that is only (IMHO) in the same sense that a person with Stage IV Liver Cancer is approaching Peak Liver Cancer.
Anyway, I have to go away and do various things: I am sure we can continue this topic as need be in the comment threads to Dalrock’s future OPs.
Thanks again.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
Pingback: Erasing fathers from Scripture. | Dalrock
Pingback: He had to know that they would one day come for him. | Dalrock