Desiring to be God – Part 2

If someone told you that human males are born to be gods, you would brand that person as a heretic, or a Mormon. Yet that is what is being taught by some professors in Southern Baptist affiliated seminaries, some pastors, and any other person or seminary that uses Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism as their guide.

This misogynous book was published in 1991 and was, and still is, sponsored by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It continues to be a best-seller. The 482 page book is a collection of male headship writings and teachings of various Christians. John Piper and Wayne Grudem edited this book and it is therefore assumed that they agree with its teachings, for why would anybody put something in a book that they do not agree with? And why would anyone use such a book unless they, too, believe it?

In this series, we will use their own words to see how they express this belief that men are gods, and that women are inferior to these human male gods. In order to elevate themselves, they must first oppress females.  So they do that with their claim that women want to be men.  This is evidenced all through their Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood book. Others have taken up their mantra that women want to be men, as we can see in this email I received.

I don’t even know where to begin! By saying the things you say, you are instantly breaking Gods commands for women. How can you, a poor sinner, decide what the scripture means? It’s very simple if you read the words that are written, and not what you WANT to think it says. God’s words are non-negotiable and are to be lived every single day. I know we all sin, but by saying that His words/commands are WRONG…I can only pray you will see the true word of God and repent. Women are NOT equal to men, or they would BE men. You are mad at God because he did not make you a man.

We will examine the ramifications of what this means to women. And we will show you how these men believe that they are gods. There is only one God in heaven, so they can’t all be God, but they teach that all men have the potential to be man-gods on earth.

For some time I have been struggling with the teaching that God chose males to be rulers over women. I could not understand how any Christian group or pastor can teach that women can give birth to a boy-child who they believe is inherently greater than the mother is.

But I had a problem with this because every time I would think, “A woman cannot give birth to a being superior to herself,” I would come up with Mary who gave birth to Jesus, who was the son of God.

Yes, she could do it, but that is the exception and women can’t give birth to a greater being than she herself, can she?

You will be surprised as I was to learn that complementarians are actually teaching that women – you and I – are giving birth to god-men on earth.

Adam, who was in God’s image, passed the divine image (albeit flawed by sin) on to his son Seth. The divine image resided in the individuals Adam and Seth. (MALE-FEMALE EQUALITY AND MALE HEADSHIP GENESIS 1-3 by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., page 89 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).

Here we have Adam passing along his divinity through his seed to a son, Seth. According to complementarians, a woman in the image of God reflects an incomplete image, as she does not have spiritual or physical leadership over others.

We can see Ortlund’s reasoning in one of two ways: 1) Only Seth had the divine image and the other sons of Adam did not, and divinity would have been lost; or he meant 2) Adam passed his divine image to Seth and then to all his sons (which is the way you must see it in order for males to have headship over females).

According to the Ortlund as each male had sons, those sons became imbued with divinity. Thus they became little man-gods, which is still being passed on through to sons in the 21st Century. Ortlund does not say that divinity was passed on through daughters, even though he does claim that men and women are both in the image of God. Was not Eve, too, in God’s image and wouldn’t Eve have passed that divinity to her sons and daughters?

Genesis 5:1 says “…When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man.'” That scripture goes on to say that that Adam had a son in his likeness , in his own image, so this is apparently where Ortlund feels he can exclude women. But then the statement is made that Adam had other sons and daughters and no mention is made of those sons having the divine image, so Ortlund is choosing to see what he wants to see in order to confirm his beliefs.

Instead of Desiring God, as John Piper and Wayne Grudem would have you believe through their premier misogynistic work, these seminary professors, pastors, preachers, Christian leaders, and Piper and Grudem themselves, are Desiring to be God.

About these ads

About bwebaptistwomenforequality

Shirley Taylor writes with humor and common sense, challenging the church body to reclaim equality for Christian women.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Desiring to be God – Part 2

  1. Shirley, I have a question for you. In 1 Corinthians 11: 7, do you believe that Paul is speaking of a man’s literal head or his figurative head, Jesus Christ? In other words, do you believe that man is the image and glory of God, or do you believe that Jesus Christ is the image and glory of God?

    Like

    • Good questions, but the questions themselves require translation. When you say “man” are you talking about males, or humankind which is female and male? When you say literal head are you speaking of a flesh and body head or a situational head? Kristin, this whole passage is for a time in Paul’s day and cannot apply to us. If it does apply to us, then most of us are going to hell because we don’t abide by it. I have hair on my head to cover it, but many people (Catholics until 1965) believed that women were to actually wear fabric over their head. Many still believe that. Now how can that be spiritual? In Verse 3 (1 Corinthians 11:3) Paul begins by saying that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Then he starts talking about hair coverings and even says that “every” woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her head – is he talking about the husband – or Christ or God or her own physical flesh and blood body head? Then Paul says it is just as though her head were shaved. Well, again, is this the husband, Christ or God or her own body head that is shaved? We don’t live in Paul’s day, and to make women or men live in that day and time is foolish. We can’t even understand what he is talking about, and to expect to make it fit our life is foolish. In fact, it becomes another law because it has bound us. We need to keep Matthew 23 taped to our refrigerators, and every time we move from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we should first remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees about the Law in Matthew 23. And remember Paul when he said that if we want to take on the law again, then we must take on the whole law. We don’t want to do that. I am not a theologian. I am a practical Christian. I believe Christ lives for me today. I believe that Paul spoke to customs and cultural situations of a time past and that they do not apply to me today. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God and your neighbor as yourself and that trumps all the law. I appreciate your questions and am glad to answer them.

      > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:45:32 +0000 > To: bwebaptist.women@live.com >

      Like

      • Shirley, I am talking about a man as the Greek word that Paul uses in verse 7 is “aner” and means “man, male, husband”. He does not use the word “anthropos” which would refer to both man and woman. So I want to know if you think that Paul was refering (back then when he was writing) to a man’s literal (meaning his own head) head or is he refering to a man’s figurative head (vs. 3) Jesus Christ?

        Like

      • Kristin, this is my explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:3 from my book. There is no way a man be a literal head of a woman, so it has to be figuratively speaking. Men and women have the same figurative head which is Christ. Interpret 1 Corinthians 11:3 this way Now I want you to realize the head of every man and every woman is Christ (remember that I told you that it is like your own family where the husband is the head of the woman) and Christ has this authority because Christ has his beginning as God.

        Then he gets into the long hair versus short hair, but modern day Christians are not to concern themselves with that. Paul was speaking to the men and women in the present tensetheir present tensetheir NOW, not in the past, and not in the future. He was saying, This is the way it is right now. That is different from culture. Culture can go from the past to the present and into the future. It can change as time goes by, but the NOW is frozen in time with no past and no future.

        Paul was neither establishing that husbands have headship over their wives, nor was he making it a condition for the future. He was simply saying that this is the way it is and he used that as an example to show them how Christ/God was the head of the church. Egalitarians do not deny that male dominated marriages were a fact of life in Pauls day; what egalitarians do deny is that a fact of life in a past culture becomes a biblical command to Christian women in the 21st century.

        It is commonly taught that every scripture verse has a meaning for the time it was written and also for the future. But apparently it does not. If it did, pastors would tell women in their congregations that they dress like prostitutes and their clothing, makeup, and jewelry reflect badly upon Christ. Paul and Peter both wrote the same things with regard to how women were to dress in those same passages where they tell women to submit. > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:08:06 +0000 > To: bwebaptist.women@live.com >

        Like

  2. TL says:

    One of the better answers on this subject. thanks! :)

    Like

  3. TL says:

    Kristen, verse three is not speaking of a literal head, but is using kephale in metaphor which can mean many things but not the way we use it today. I believe that verse 7 is referring to a man’s literal head although verse 10 is using kephale as indicating the woman’s person, so that she should be able to exercise authority on her own life. As the author here said, there are so many ancient customs being spoken into that it is difficult to make full sense of this section.

    Like

    • Yes TL, verse three is not speaking of a literal head, but rather of a figurative head. The reason Paul uses the word kephale figuratively in verse 3 is because a faction of men wrote to him (vss. 4-6) who made a literal head argument. So Paul in verse 7 is referring back to his model (vs. 3) to a man’s figurative head, Jesus Christ, and is using Jesus Christ as a correlation as to why women should not be veiled. So it is Jesus Christ, not man, who is the image and glory of God. My point with asking Shirley this is because everyone acknowledges man as being the image and glory of God when the Bible clearly states that it is Jesus Christ. So when some men say they are gods should we be so surprised? As long as believers continue to acknowledge man as the image and glory of God, we will get nowhere. We need to stand up to these men with the truth of God’s Word and tell them that Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus Christ is the image and glory of God.

      Like

  4. krwordgazer says:

    The contradiction inherent in these words is apparently lost on the writer:

    “How can you, a poor sinner, decide what the scripture means? It’s very simple if you read the words that are written, and not what you WANT to think it says.”

    The writer herself has decided what the scripture means– it means “the words that are written.” Which actually means that she is defaulting to her own 21st-century Western way of reading whatever words the translators have seen fit to put on the page. She is three steps away from the actual words that were written, in that the original texts no longer exist (only copies), the copies have been translated out of their original language, and she is then reading the translation based on what they appear to her to mean.

    And then she claims that there is something morally wrong with you– not that you disagree, not even that you might be in error, but morally wrong– for not seeing what she sees on the page. She has exempted herself from being a “poor sinner” who can’t decide what the text means. She has decided not only what the text means, but that you are in sin. Big, big log in the eye there. Might need a crane to remove it!

    Like

  5. Thank you Shirley for your comment. I just know that if we as believers give Jesus Christ the glory that is due Him and Him alone, and acknowledge Him as the image and glory of God as the Bible says, then we will be able to stand up against the lies that men teach. The Bible never says that a woman is inferior to man, but rather it states that the woman is the glory of man. Women have nothing to fear when God’s Word is accurately translated and interpreted. It is when men insert their lies into Scripture that this problem occurs.

    Like

  6. Tom Parker says:

    Shirley: Woman are definitely equal to men in God’s eyes. I really want to ask men like Grudem why do you hate women like you do?

    Like

  7. Tom Parker says:

    Shirley:

    I would also like to ask men like Grudem what is their pattern for taking the Bible literally and when it is ok for them not to. I really think this addresses their belief they are like a god and are able to do this with no one calling them on it. Two quick examples. To be a minister the qualifications are the husband of one wife; if taken literally a single man can not be a pastor, but I am sure there are single men serving as pastors. Also why are divorced pastors allowed to continue as ministers. It is sick how these people twist and turn the Holy words of God for their advantage.

    Like

    • They pick and choose, don’t they? From my early days in my Baptist church when I was a girl, we had a single (never married) man as a deacon. Then in my church for 23 years in one city, we had a single (never married) man as a deacon. Nobody minded. We thought they were great. But they sure didn’t fit the “husband of one wife” qualification. So we/they bent that qualification, but wouldn’t bend it for a female. Go figure.

      > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:16:27 +0000 > To: bwebaptist.women@live.com >

      Like

  8. I find it truly amazing that the male commenter who was so affronted with your blog should suggest that you actually want to be a man! This says a huge amount in a very small sentence. Apparently you have gender envy and this can be the only reason that you write. This man has no ability to put himself in a woman’s shoes, nor apparently any desire to because we are simply ‘poor sinners who cannot decide for ourselves what the scripture means’. Who would want to be in the shoes of such despised and ignorant creatures. If those who are leaders are meant to serve in humility (Christ himself being the prime example) and not lord it over others, then this man has not only disqualified himself from his own presumed leadership but has exposed himself as the charlatan he is. Don’t come to this blog sir and attack and oppress the very sisters you claim to have superiority over. All that does is provide an abundance of evidence of your own carnal nature and insecurities over who you reallly are!

    Like

    • Welcome! There is a prevailing belief that women want to be men and this is perpetuated by religious leaders and seminary professors. That is itself says how highly they value their biological fact of being a man. How proud they are of something they had no control over!

      Thanks for stopping by. This will be about a 10 part series.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s