Before proceeding, one might ask, does such a question matter? If you are a Christian apologist who seeks to prove that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, it might. But if one is trying to prove that converting to Christianity provides a great boon to every individualʼs life in this case Franklinʼs, there is little evidence of him changing much if at all (provided he did convert, which is the question at issue).
The rise of womenʼs rights worldwide owes much to unconventional women of each generation who pushed the limits of what was considered “acceptable female behavior.” (See my references at the very end for examples)
Dr. Amy Jill-Levine—Professor at Vanderbilt in the Graduate Dept. of Religion, is one of the best-known New Testament scholars in the U.S., co-editor with Dale C. Allison Jr. and John Dominic Crossan of The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religions) (Princeton University Press; New Ed. Oct., 2006). Levineʼs numerous publications address Christian Origins, Jewish-Christian Relations, and Sexuality, Gender, and the Bible. She is also the author of Women Like This: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Her essay, “Jesus was no Feminist” used to be online, but you can find a copy here, broken into several sections due to the word limits of each comment.
Also see Salty Wives, Spirited Mothers, and Savvy Widows: Capable Women of Purpose and Persistence in Lukeʼs Gospel by F. Scott Spencer (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012)
As stated in the above work, “However much he [Jesus] might have been ahead of his time, he did not jump two millennia on gender equality. He called God ‘Father,’ and twelve men to be his apostles and future judges of Israel; he rarely initiated contacts with women and never explicitly called women to follow him; and, however much he might have laid the groundwork for an inclusive, servant-driven community, it was insufficient to keep his followers from furthering patriarchal, hierarchical, and ‘kyriarchal’ ecclesiastical structures in his name.”
Christians are still in damage control, trying to explain away or sugar coat some of the things Paul said about women (some scholars simply admit that the Pastoral Epistles were pseudepigraphical, so that what they say about women is not truly Pauline if inspired at all). And thereʼs Jesusʼ choice of twelve men to follow him and judge the tribes of Israel, along with the focus on God as Father, when “God” is more mysterious than that, an infinite Being of no gender.
Let me add some passages I find amusing:
Moses warned Israelite men to “come not at their wives” before “meeting the Lord.” (Exodus 19:15,17)
Jesus said, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat. 19:12)
Paul taught: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife… The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none.” (1 Cor. 7)
“These [men] are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.” (Revelation 14: 2-4)
The Bibleʼs heroes could have multiple wives and concubines.
See D. Marty Lasley [a Southern Baptist], “Keeping Women In Servitude: Why Southern Baptists Resurrected The Hermeneutics Of Slavery” (2000) —- On June 10, 1998, the SBConvention, for the first time, amended the 1963 Southern Baptist statement of faith known as the Baptist Faith And Message, adding a brand new section (XVIII) entitled the “Family Amendment” that states in part, “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him [spiritually], has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation [in the societal realm].” Southern Baptists believe their amendment concerning the necessity of wifely “submission” and the wifeʼs duty to “respect, serve and help” her husband, is what the Holy Scriptures demand. But Southern Baptist slaveowners once believed the same thing regarding the “submission” of slaves and the slaveʼs duty to “respect, serve and help” their masters.
While in the OT female slaves remained their masterʼs property “for ever.”
The “giving away of the bride” ritual in religious marriage ceremonies resembles a transferance of ownership of property. Note the expression, “Who gives this woman to this man?” The woman is the property of her father, which he passes to another man.
The Bible instructs men to take a proactive approach to their problem with paternity — the possibility that their putative children are not their genetic offspring — by murdering brides who do not bleed on first penetration, by murdering prospective wives who are not virgins, by torturing and murdering wives who are suspected of adultery, and by murdering women who have committed adultery. Although some non-Western cultures also sanctify these practices, in other cultures women have traditionally been “very free and at liberty in doing what they please with themselves” (Barbosa 1500:105-6). It follows that the Bibleʼs dark legacy is not a requirement of human nature. See “Chastity And Fidelity: Biblical Roots Of The Short Leash On Women” by John Hartung.
Thomas Aquinas compared women to being monstrous accidents of birth. “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power…” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Ecclesiastes 7:26
St. Augustine wrote to a friend: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” And in Book XV of The City of God, “The evil spirits often are said to have appeared with women, lusted after them and consummated intercourse with them.”
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546): “If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, thatʼs why they are there.”
“The Biblical Position On…Womenʼd Roles” written by John MacArthur Jr., Christian speaker, evangelist (1988). Worth a read…
Such quotations from Christians could be multiplied.
“The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from womenʼs right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth…and womanʼs suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of womenʼs social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religionists defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them.”
Dr. Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Uta Johanna Ingrid Heinemann)—Author of Eunichs For The Kingdom Of Heaven: Women, Sexuality, And The Catholic Church; and, Putting Away Childish Things. She was the first ever female Catholic theologian for the world, but was stripped of her departmental chair and license to preach because she questioned doctrinal beliefs.
Karen Armstrong—Author of The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out Of Darkness; former nun; and author of the bestseller, A History Of God.
Dr. Daphne Hampson—Author of After Christianity (2nd Rev edition, 2003); and, Christian Contradictions: The Structures Of Lutheran And Catholic Thought (Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition (2004); former Anglican theologian.
Carlene Cross—Author of Fleeing Fundamentalism: A Ministerʼs Wife Examines Faith (2006). Publisherʼs Weekly writes: “After indoctrination at a Bible college, Cross finds herself in a marriage from hell. Her husband, a popular young pastor [and rising star of the Religious Right], uses religion to mask the alternate reality he has created, a netherworld that will potentially destroy not only his career but the entire familyʼs safety and sanity… Her heartfelt condemnation of public hypocrisy couldnʼt be more timely. In her ex-husbandʼs own self-indicting words: “Isnʼt it ironic, a guy condemning sinful society and completely without a conscience himself?” (Ms. Cross is also a former student of Christian apologist, Gary Habermas, who now teaches at Liberty University.)
“Mommy, Does God Hate Women?”—This simple yet profoundly insightful question was posed by my neighborʼs six-year-old daughter, Jillian. It was inspired by her twelve-year-old sister Sarahʼs recent emergence into womanhood, i.e. the onset of her first menses. Rather than try to put a positive spin on this life-changing and often traumatic event in a young womanʼs life, their mother—an Evangelical Christian—explained to the girls that this was the curse the great Jehovah put upon Eve for her disobedience in the Garden of Eden.
Excerpt from John Cornwell, The Pontiff in Winter: Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II
Laywomen, who might have exerted a civilizing influence, were present in the Vatican in pitifully small numbers. The contemptuous way in which they were treated revealed the misogynist culture that prevailed. A former secretary, now living in Switzerland, reported that she was treated more like a slave than a human being and that she was literally locked in her office each day by her boss, a distinguished Dominican priest-theologian, and had to knock to be allowed to go to the bathroom.
Another told me that after she was appointed personal assistant to an archbishop, officials were in the habit of opening the door to her office and staring at her in sullen silence. When she went to the Vatican cafeteria, male bureaucrats would move away if she sat close to them.
Excerpt from “The People Of Opus Dei,” April 15, 2006
Opus Dei requires a deep commitment - especially for members called numeraries. They live and work in Opus Dei centers like their headquarters in New York.
“I would say the 20 years I was in Opus Dei was up and down. Very up and very down,” says a woman who goes by “Jane.”
Jane asked CBS News to hide her identity. She joined Opus Dei right out of High School, working as a live-in cook and housekeeper at Opus Dei centers across the country. She says she handed almost every cent she earned back to the group.
“The striving for perfection it becomes very all consuming to the point where common sense just doesnʼt come into play. And I donʼt think that was a good thing,” says Jane.
Jane claims to have become so occupied with her work and prayer schedule that she went three years without speaking to her parents. A year ago they hired a cult-deprogrammer to convince her to quit. Now sheʼs pulling herself together in the Ozark Mountains.
“When you are in Opus Dei, you are afraid to leave because you think that you are going to hell for not doing godʼs will,” she says.
Women Without Superstition : No Gods - No Masters by Annie Laurie Gaylor (Editor)
The story of how female heretics, agnostics, and atheists influenced the womenʼs movement. 51 feminists, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Katha Pollitt and Barbara Ehrenreich, shows how the leaders of the womenʼs-liberation movement have long understood the crucial importance of breaking with the Bible. “The book made me think—hard—about why I support an institution that has, historically, such an atrocious record of abuses against women. In sparkling displays of logic, freethinking women snip patriarchal theology into ribbons. The lives of these women are absolutely exhilarating.”
Includes excerpts of: Mary Wollstonecraft, Anne Royall, Frances Wright, Harriet Martineau, Lydia Maria Child, Ernestine L. Rose, Margaret Fuller, Emma Martin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy N. Colman, George Eliot, Susan B. Anthony, Ella E. Gibson, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Lois Waisbrooker, Elmina D. Slenker, Lillie Devereux Blake, Ouida, Marilla Ricker, Annie Besant, Susan H. Wixon, Ella Wheeler Wilcox, Helen Gardener, Ellen Battelle Dietrick, Josephine K. Henry, Etta Semple, Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, Zona Gale, Margaret Sanger, Marian Sherman, Dora Russell, Meridel Le Sueur, Margaret Knight, Barbara Smoker, Queen Silver, Vashti McCollum, Ruth Hurmence Green, Catherine Fahringer, Anne Nicol Gaylor, Meg Bowman, Barbara G. Walker, Sherry Matulis, Kay Nolte Smith, Sonia Johnson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Katha Pollitt, Taslima Nasrin. Also includes biographical sketches of 39 additional freethinking women such as Ayn Rand, George Sand, Lucy Parsons, Florence Nightingale, and Jane Addams. Also featuring an exclusive Elizabeth Cady Stanton Reader.
Doubt: A History by Jennifer Hecht
Hecht is especially engaging when she describes the great women skeptics of history, starting with Hypatia, torn to pieces by a Christian mob in 415 A.D. There was Margaret of Navarre, the sensitive but hard-headed Emily Dickinson, and the fearless Margaret Sanger. Hecht is charmed by the 19th-century American atheist lecturer and anarchist Voltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912). Voltairineʼs father named her after his favorite skeptic but sent her to a Catholic boarding school. This did not dampen her spirit: She became such a rabble-rousing advocate for labor and womenʼs rights that she was the subject of a biography by the socialist Emma Goldman.
Note: The following text is a reprint of the non-copyrighted booklet titled, “THE BIBLICAL POSITION ON…WOMENʼS ROLES” written by John MacArthur Jr.
Womenʼs Roles
The feminist movement of the twentieth century has assaulted traditional Christian values for women, and the result has been a revolution in our country. Whereas women traditionally fulfilled support roles and gained their greatest joy and sense of accomplishment from being wives and mothers, today many have abandoned their homes for the higher-paying and supposedly more prestigious jobs of the work force outside the home. Traditional sexual morality has given way to promiscuity with women often in the role of aggressor. Gentle, quiet women have become self-assertive and hostile, boldly demanding their “rights.” Divorce is rampant, with women frequently initiating separation and divorces.
As if the secular feminist movement does not generate enough confusion for women today, there has arisen a fast-growing group who refer to themselves as “biblical feminists.” This movement, which includes both men and women of varying theological perspectives, espouses most of the causes of the secular movement while seeking to find their justification in Scripture.
What Does the Bible Say?
As Christians, our desire is to examine the Scripture as carefully as possible in order to know Godʼs will and obey it. We believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Word of God and are confident that it has a clear message for women today. Only the Bible can offer a final solution to the chaos and confusion with which modern women are confronted.
The Old Testament and Women
In the creation account of Genesis 1 we find Godʼs first word on the subject of men and women (verse 27)—they were both equally created in the image of God. Neither received more of the image of God than the other. So the Bible begins with the equality of the sexes. As persons, as human beings, as spiritual beings, standing before God, men and women are absolutely equal.
Despite this equality, there is in Genesis 2 a more detailed account of the creation of the two humans which show some differences in their God-given responsibilities. God did not create the man and woman spontaneously at the same time, but rather He created Adam first and Eve later for the specific purpose of being a helper to Adam. Though Eve was Adamʼs equal, she was given a role to fulfill in submitting to him. While the word “helper” carries very positive connotations, even being used of God Himself as the helper of Israel (Deut. 33:7, Ps. 33:20), it still describes one in a relationship of service to another.
When craftily tempted in the Garden of Eden, Eve, rather than seeking Adamʼs counsel or leadership, took the lead herself, eating of the forbidden fruit and then leading her husband into sin (Gen. 3:6). Because Adam and Eve sinned in disobedience to the command of God, there followed certain consequences for them and also for the serpent (Gen. 3:14-19). For the woman, God pronounced a curse which included multiplied pain in childbirth and tension in the authority- submission relationship of the husband and wife. Genesis 3:16 says the womanʼs “desire” will be for her husband but he shall “rule” over her. In Genesis 4:7 the author uses the same word “desire” to mean “excessive control over.” Thus, the curse in Genesis 3:16 refers to a new desire on the part of the woman to exercise control over her husband—but he will in fact rule or exert authority over her. The result down through history has been an ongoing struggle between the sexes—with women seeking control and men ruling instead, often harshly. Before the fall and the curse there was true harmony in the husband-wife relationship, but through the curse a new element of tension and dissension entered into the marriage relationship.
It is significant to note that the responsibility of wives to submit to their husbands was part of Godʼs plan even before the curse. Feminists often dispute this, viewing submission as something which came in through the curse and which should be eliminated through the cross of Jesus Christ (just as we seek to relieve the pain of childbirth through drugs and breathing techniques, and as we seek to ease the toil of the field through modern technology, even including air-conditioned tractors). But since a careful reading of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that God created the woman to support her husband an be a suitable companion to him, we do not erase womanʼs submission in marriage through the cross but rather we add harmony to the relationship.
Thus, the Bible begins by establishing both the equality of men and women and also the support role of the wife. Many other Old Testament passages support these two themes of equality and submission for women (i.e., Ex. 21:15,17,28-31;Num. 6:2; 5:19,20,29; 30:1-16).
Women were active in the religious life of Israel throughout the Old Testament, but generally they were not leaders—with a few exceptions. Women like Deborah (Jud. 4), however, clearly were the exception and not the rule. In fact, Isaiah 3:12 in its context of Godʼs judgment on unbelieving and disobedient Israel indicates that God allowed weak leaders, either masculine women or effeminate men, to rule as a part of His judgment on the sinning nation.
Jesus and Women
When we begin to look at women in the New Testament, the first thing we observe is how Jesus spent time with women and apparently enjoyed their companionship—in stark contrast to other men of His day. In the midst of the Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures, which viewed women almost on the level with possessions, Jesus showed love and respect for women.
Though Jewish rabbis did not teach women, Jesus not only included women in His audiences but used illustrations and images in His teaching which would be familiar to them (Matt. 13:33, 22:1-2; 24:41; Lk. 15:8-10). He also specifically applied His teachings to women (Matt. 10:34f).
While the Jewish Talmud said it was better to burn the Torah than teach it to a woman, Jesus taught women freely. To the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4), He revealed that He was the Messiah. With her He also discussed such important topics as eternal life and the nature of true worship. Jesus never took the position that women, by their very nature, could not understand spiritual or theological truth. He also taught Mary and, when admonished by Martha, pointed out the priority of learning spiritual truth even over “womanly” responsibilities like serving guests in oneʼs home (Lk. 10:38-42).
Though men in Jesusʼ day normally would not allow women to count change into their hands for fear of physical contact, Jesus touched women to heal them and allowed women to touch Him (Lk. 13:10f; Mk. 5:25f). Jesus even allowed a small group of women to travel with Him and His disciples (Lk. 8:1-3)—“an unprecedented happening in the history of that time,” said one commentator.
After His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and sent her to announce His resurrection to the disciples (Jn. 20:1-18). Jesus did this despite the fact that women were not allowed to be witnesses in Jewish courts because they were all believed to be liars.
In Jesusʼ treatment of women we see how He raised their station in life and how He showed them compassion and respect in a way that they had never known before. But Jesus still did not exalt women to a place of leadership over men. None of the Twelve he selected were women. Even at the cross where most of the men had fled and the women remained faithful, Jesus did not dismiss His male disciples and replace them with women. And Jesus made a radical break with His culture in so many ways that surely He would have done it in this way also if it had been Godʼs will. Jesus, in His treatment of women, demonstrated their equality and worth as persons, but He did not promote them to positions of leadership over men.
The Epistles and Women
In the Epistles we discover the same two principles side by side—both equality and submission for women. Galatians 3:28 points us to the equality, indicating that the way of salvation is the same for both men and women and that they are members of equal standing in the body of Christ. It does not, however, eradicate all differences in responsibilities for men and women since this passage does not cover every aspect of Godʼs design for male and female and since Paul makes clear distinctions in other passages he wrote.
The passages which instruct us about spiritual gifts also make no distinctions according to sex. And most Scriptural exhortations to Christian growth and behavior are directed to men and women alike (i.e., I Pet. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:16; 6:1; Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:16; Phil. 2:1-5).
However, throughout the New Testament and alongside these passages on equality are also passages which make distinctions between what God desires of men and what He desires of women, especially within marriage and within the church.
The Family
While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), the New Testament, in four separate passages, expressly gives to the wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5). This is the voluntary submission of one equal to another out of love for God and a desire to follow His design in His Word. It is never pictured as groveling or in any way diminishing the wifeʼs worth as a person, but rather the husband is called upon to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25).
The biblical picture is of a union filled with love and harmony where both partners are submitting to one another, where both lovingly sacrifice for the best interest of the other and where the husband is the leader in a relationship of two equals.
While husbands and fathers have been given primary responsibility for the leadership of their families including their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; I Tim. 3:4-5), wives and mothers are urged to be “workers at home” (Ti. 2:5), meaning managers of households. Their home and their children are to be their priority—in contrast to the feminist emphasis today on careers and jobs for women outside the home.
The biblical pattern for raising and instructing children in Godʼs truths was established in Deuteronomy 6 where children are to be taught by parents “when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” Parents are responsible for the spiritual education of their children, and mothers who work full-time outside their homes usually lack the quality time to instruct their children adequately. Nor can the responsibility for this instruction simply be transferred to someone else. While feminists emphasize that women should seek their own self-fulfillment at all costs, the Bible urges Christian women to be humble, to sacrifice their own needs to meet the needs of others, to do what is best for their children, trusting that God will meet their needs in the process.
The Church
From the very beginning of the Christian church women fulfilled a vital role (Acts 1:12-14; 9:36-42; 16:13-15; 17:1-4, 10-12; 18:1-2, 18, 24-28; Rom. 16; I Cor. 16:19; II Tim. 1:5; 4:19). Women played an important role in the church from earliest days but not a leading role. The incarnation was in a Man, the apostles were all men, the chief missionary activity was done by men, the writing of the New Testament was the work of men (though some feminists would have us believe Priscilla wrote the Book of Hebrews), and generally leadership in the churches was entrusted to men. Still, women had a prominence and dignity in the early propagation and expansion of the gospel that they did not have in Judaism or the heathen world.
While the Apostle Paul respected women and worked side by side with them for the furtherance of the gospel (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:3), he appointed no women elders or pastors. In his epistles, as he wrote instructions to the churches, he urged that men were to be the leaders and that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men (I Tim 2:12).
The ministry of women is essential to the body of Christ, but the New Testament gives no basis for women becoming pastors or elders. While women are spiritual equals with men, they are excluded from leadership over men in the church. The New Testament finds no conflict here though twentieth century feminists insist that these principles contradict one another.
The Apostle Paul is completely consistent with Jesus in regard to women. Paul had a high regard for women and shared his labors for the gospel with many of them. But, like Jesus, he never appointed them to positions of authority over men in the home or the church. As active as women were in the early church, nowhere did Paul ordain them as elders.
Where The Feminists Go Wrong!
If more Christians understood the methods of feminist thinking and what kind of biblical interpretation they must do in order to arrive at their conclusions, they would likely be more hesitant to accept the feminist position. To understand the feminist interpretation process, we begin by examining their view of Galatians 3:28 and how their interpretation of that verse affects their interpretation of the rest of the New Testament.
Feminist View OF GALATIANS 3:28 - The foundation for all feminist interpretation of the New Testament is Galatians 3:28—“Their is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Feminists interpret this verse to refer to an equality which is both theological, regarding men and womenʼs standing before God, and also social, regarding all of their relationships in day-to-day living. If men and women are equal before God, feminists say, then there can be no differences within their roles and responsibilities in society. Feminists therefore use this verse as the basis for the elimination of all role distinctions between men and women in Christianity. They then interpret all other New Testament verses on women in light of the feminist understanding of Galatians 3:28, thus demanding that no other verse be allowed to teach role distinctions for men and women.
Problem With Feminist View Of Galatians 3:28 - Feminists fail to interpret Galatians 3:28 in its proper context. The verse concerns the subject of justification and the believerʼs relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. Paul was not seeking to establish social equality in the relationships he mentioned. Rather, he was showing that all, regardless of their standing in society, may participate by faith in the inheritance of Abraham to be sons of God. He was teaching the fundamental equality of both men and women in their standing before God. Even the feminists emphasize that this is a theological passage rather than one dealing with practical matters.
Equality of being before God does not require the elimination of all role distinctions in society. Equality of being does not rule out authority and submission in relationships. We could point to many examples of relationships in which there is equality and yet a difference in roles involving authority and submission—the Trinity, the President and U. S. citizens, parents and children, employers and employees, Elders and church members.
The theology of Galatians 3:28 will result in certain social implications, but they will be the ones given in the Bible. Where authority and submission are discussed in relationships in the New Testament, instructions are given for how those relationships may be regulated so that they function in Christian love and harmony and not with abuse. The Bible does not eliminate authority but cautions that authority should be exercised in a way that honors Christ. Those in authority (husbands, Elders, parents, employers) are instructed to use their authority in a godly way. And also, those who are to submit to these authorities (wives, church members, children, employees) are instructed to submit to authority in a godly way.
Because feminists want to rule out the submission of wives to husbands and of women to male leadership in the church on the basis of Galatians 3:28, they face a serious problem in biblical interpretation when they come to the Pauline passages which explicitly teach the submission of wives to husbands and women to the male leadership in the church. Beginning with their interpretation of Galatians 3:28 that all role distinctions must be abolished in the name of equality, they seek to interpret these other Pauline passages (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1; Ti. 2:5; I Tim 2:11-15; I Cor. 11:1-16; I Cor. 14:34-35) in light of that questionable interpretation of Galatians 3:28. Feminists of various persuasions have come up with four different ways of handling this biblical material in order to reach conclusions favorable to the Feminist Viewpoint:
Feminist View #1 - The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were not really written by Paul but were added by scribes, and thus are not part of the inspired Word of God.
Problem With View #1 - This position reveals a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. According to this view, some of the Bible was inspired by God and some was not. Therefore, the Christian, rather than submitting to Scripture, must function as the judge of Scripture—always making decisions about what is inspired and what is not inspired. Both II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God inspired all Scripture, that he was overseeing the process of the writing of Scripture in such a way that the end product is His Word, not the product of human authors. Thus, the Christian views all of the Bible as Godʼs inspired Word and does not set himself as judge of the Bible.
Feminist View #2 - The New Testament passages which teach the submission of women were written by Paul, but he was wrong. Those who hold this view believe Paul was too much influenced by his rabbinical background and that in his writing of Scripture he had not reached a full understanding of how the gospel related to relationships between men and women. Thus, he was mistaken in some of the passages he wrote.
Problem With View #2 - This position is also based on a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. In this view, too, the Christian must become the judge of Scripture to determine for himself what is correct and what is incorrect. This view assumes that twentieth century man has a better understanding of Godʼs truth than did the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20-21 indicate that God worked in and through the writers of Scripture in such a way that the end product was Godʼs perfect Word and not a conglomeration of truth and error put together by human authors.
Feminist View #3 - The New Testament teaches the submission of women, but the teachings are no longer applicable in the twentieth century. According to this view, Paul was teaching the world view of his own culture in the first century, but our twentieth century culture is more enlightened about the equality of men and women, so the teaching no longer applies. Or sometimes it is said that writers of the New Testament knew that the ideal was to abolish all gender-based roles but feared to hinder the gospel if they broke so radically with their own culture. Thus, these Pauline passages are relegated to temporary cultural truth rather than universal truth for all cultures and all times.
Problem With View #3 - The foundation for Paulʼs teaching on the role or responsibilities of women is never the culture of his own day but rather the purpose of womanʼs creation and the womanʼs failure in the fall as Paul points out in I Corinthians 11:1-9 and I Timothy 2:8-15. Adam was created first, and Eve was later created as a helper for him rather than their being created simultaneously and independent of each other. Eve was deceived and led her husband into sin rather than submitting to his leadership. If the reason for the womanʼs submission is related to the creation and the fall, than it is not something which can change from year to year and culture to culture. Rather, it is a universal principle.
Some feminists say that there was no submission for the woman in creation but only as a result of the fall, that Genesis 3:16 was the beginning of authority and submission. But Genesis 2:18-25 teaches a submissive role for Eve in relationship to Adam, and Paul interprets it that way in the New Testament. Thus, the cross does not rid us of authority and submission, but it brings harmony to authority and submission relationships.
Feminist View #4 - The New Testament, if rightly understood, has never taught the submission of women. If the literary context, the historical context and the theological context were carefully studied, Paul would be clearly seen to be egalitarian, and thus the New Testament teaches that women may fulfill any responsibilities in the marriage and the church that men may fulfill. Thus, “headship” means only “source” and never “leader” or “authority.” “Be subject” means only “relate yourselves to” or “respond to” or “adjust yourselves to” and never “submit to.”
Problem With View #4 - In these last two views the confusion among the various feminist representives comes to the surface. Both groups read these same passages, and some say they teach submission and others say they do not. Greek lexicons include “authority” as one of the meanings for “head” and “submit” as one of the meanings for “be subject” so that only prejudicial interpretation could limit these words to pro-feminist definitions. This last view is so unconvincing that other feminists even reject it.
Feminist Gymnastics
If one wants to arrive at pro-feminist conclusions, there are a limited number of ways to interpret the biblical context in order to reach such a position. These four are the alternatives which feminists have devised thus far.
Each alternative has serious flaws which cause the Christian, in the process of feminist interpretation, to sacrifice either a high view of inspiration of Scripture or else to use a false hermeneutic, or principle for interpreting Scripture. Either is too high a price to pay. All of these exegetical gymnastics become necessary just to force the Pauline passages to harmonize with the feminist interpretation of Galatians 3:28. If Galatians 3:28 were interpreted correctly in context to refer to the fundamental standing of men and women before God, and if the feminists did not totally reject any concept of authority and submission, harmony of all the biblical material on the subject would be rather simple.
How Women Glorify God
Men and women stand as equals before God, both bearing the image of God Himself. Yet, without making one inferior to the other. God calls upon both men and women to fulfill roles and responsibilities designed specially for them in certain situations. In fulfilling those God-given roles taught in the New Testament, women are not limited. They are reaching their fullest potential because they are following the plan of their own Creator and Designer. Only in obedience to Him and in His design will women truly be able, in the fullest sense, to give glory to God (I Cor. 10:31).
Note: This file was written by John MacArthur Jr., of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California. It originally was presented as non-copyrighted material in a booklet titled, “The Biblical Position on Womanʼs Roles.” Bible Bulletin Board is deeply grateful for the ministry of Grace Community Church and the truth which it has presented over the years. My own Christian walk has been greatly helped by John MacArthur and the Word of Grace Ministry. For information about the radio and tape ministries of Grace Community Church and John MacArthur, write:
Word Of Grace Communications
P.O. Box 4000
Panorama City, CA 91412
Voice 1-800-55-GRACEBible Bulletin Board
Box 115
Galveston, IN 46972
Modem 317-452-1535
January 1, 1988
According to Nietzsche, “‘God on the cross.’ Never yet and nowhere has there been an equal boldness in reversal, something so horrible, questioning, and questionable as this formula: it promised a revaluation of all the values of antiquity.”
I disagree, and would argue instead that Nietzsche was a drama queen.
Nietzscheʼs “transvaluation of values” sounds dramatic, but Christianity did not turn values completely upside down, nor did Nietzsche right them again. There have been people who cared for their sick in other lands and cultures, just as there have been dictators in Christian lands. As a trained rhetorician and son of a minister, Nietzsche tended to speak in overblown terms.
In reality the idea of “God on the cross” changed the world very little because basic human needs, insecurities, ignorance and cruelty remained (we are after all, primates who follow alpha male leaders), including the egos of “Christians” which were now super-sized by being joined to the alpha male of alpha males (God).
History demonstrates that the Christian lambs who worshiped the Lamb of God on the cross soon became lions of Judah, killing more fellow lovers of Jesus and persecuting more different people for different reasons than the Romans ever did to the Christians. Christianity also helped fill the western world with the notions of demonic causation/demonization of enemies and thought control, i.e., Christianized Roman emperors decreed in their law books that anyone who doubted the truth of the Trinity was “insane, demented,” and were subject to the Emperorʼs wrath, including Imperial decrees that the books of skeptics like Porphyry and heretics like Arius be burnt. Henceforth anyone daring to question the new Christian status quo was persecuted. [Plenty of historical data to back that up at bottom]
Nietzscheʼs predecessor and idol, Schopenhauer, noted with less drama the truth about Christianity in this brief dialogue:
CONVERSATION, JERUSALEM, A.D. 33
A: Have you heard the latest?
B: No, whatʼs happened?
A: The world has been redeemed!
B: You donʼt say!
A: Yes, the Dear Lord took on human form and had himself executed in Jerusalem; and with that the world has been redeemed and the devil hoodwinked.
B: Gosh, thatʼs simply lovely.
Would the world be much better or worse off today had the Persians conquered the Greeks at Thermopylae, leaving the Middle East Zoroastrian? Or if the religion of the Roman Empire had become Mithraism rather than Christianity? Humanity would have eventually learned via people other than Jesus, lessons of practical moral philosophy, and the value of tolerance and love. Either way, It takes time for us primates to learn new things. Our own individual lives have extended childhoods and adolescences compared with those of our primate cousins, during which time we learn more.
Neither am I impressed by Jesusʼ lessons alone. A lot of interpretation has gone into understanding them. See the forthcoming volume from Sheffield Phoenix Press, “The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics”
Furthermore…
Jesus is depicted in the Gospels leading the life of a first century celebrity who, like celebrities today, people either loved or hated. Jesus was either being listened to by crowds of people, invited to dinner and taken care of by his groupies, or he was being denounced and threatened. He never had to endure as most people do, a lifetime of anonymity including such everyday trials as marriage and child-rearing. Talk about a cross to bear. I would have liked to have seen how Jesus could parable-ize his way out of doing the dishes, taking out the trash, getting into a brouhaha with his wife after staying out late nights with his boys, or waiting in line at the check-out counter with a box of much needed diapers or Tampax that he had to get home quickly but the person ahead of him with 100 items in their cart didnʼt invite Jesus to go on through ahead, and then when Jesus thought that person was about to pay and finally allow him to check-out, he sees them take out their check-book to pay and the cashier doesnʼt have authority to cash checks and has to call over the manager. At which point Jesus explodes. But not at the Pharisees, just at life in general. Then he has a heart attack following decades of such day to day stressful situations and dies. No. Jesus was a celebrity and died a celebrityʼs death. So what? Now we have to build churches to honor him, carve statues in his imagined likeness, keep the dust off those statues and light candles for him all year long? As for Jesusʼ death on a cross, people were scourged and/or died on crosses for any number of reasons, justly or unjustly, and Jesus might have been crucified sooner had he been born thirty or forty years earlier or later, when friction between Israel and Rome was greater.
To quote E. M. Cioran: The ultimate cruelty was that of Jesus “leaving an inheritance of bloodstains of the cross… Had he lived to be sixty, he would have given us his memoirs instead of the cross… For two thousand years, Jesus has revenged himself on us for not having died on a sofa.”
The famous “sofa” line from Cioran makes me wonder what the apostles would have done had Jesus tripped and accidentally hit his head on a large rock while preaching, or, took a nasty tumble on his final walk toward Jerusalem, and, instead of being executed on a cross wound up having to be cared for by those same apostles for years until he slowly wasted away? Having to care for a crippled or brain damaged friend for a decade or more seems like more of a challenge, and certainly the image of modern day Christians wearing little bed pans around their necks would be different, along with the message that “Our savior slowly wasted away, required 24 hour care, and was only able to repeat certain syllables up till the end without making much sense… for your sins.” If you were to present the apostles with such a situation and even gave them the choice of one or the other, I bet they would choose to have Jesus die in a few hours on a cross instead, no matter how bloody, so they could march around triumphantly spreading their beliefs soon afterwards.
Cioran added…
“A human being possessed by a belief and not eager to pass it on to others is a phenomenon alien to the earth… Look around you: everywhere, specters preaching, each institution translates a mission; city halls have their absolute, even as the temples—officialdom, with its rules… Everyone trying to remedy everyoneʼs life: even beggars, even the incurable aspire to it: the sidewalks and hospitals of the world overflow with reformers. The longing to become a source of events affects each man like a mental disorder or a desired malediction. Society—an inferno of saviors!… The compulsion to preach is so rooted in us that it emerges from depths unknown to the instinct for self-preservation. Each of us awaits his moment in order to propose something — anything. he has a voice: that is enough… all hand out formulas for happiness, all try to give directions… if you fail to meddle in other peopleʼs business you are so uneasy about your own that you convert your ‘self’ into a religion, or, apostle in reverse, you deny it altogether; we are victims of the universal game.” (Eric Hoffer agreed with Cioranʼs assessment that Christianity, Islam, fascism, communism, and other ideological mass movements attract people for similar psychological reasons.)
Or as Salman Rushdie put it…
“Love can lead to devotion, but the devotion of the lover is unlike that of the True Believer in that it is not militant. I may be surprised - even shocked - to find that you do not feel as I do about a given book or work of art or even person; I may very well attempt to change your mind; but I will finally accept that your tastes, your loves, are your business and not mine. The True Believer knows no such restraints. The True Believer knows that he is simply right, and you are wrong. He will seek to convert you, even by force, and if he cannot he will, at the very least, despise you for your unbelief.”
Logan Pearsall Smith said something similar about human beings being possessed by their beliefs, but in a funnier fashion:
“How is one to keep free from those mental microbes that worm-eat peopleʼs brains—those Theories and Diets and Enthusiasms and infectious Doctrines that we catch from what seem the most innocuous contacts? People go about laden with germs; they breath creeds and convictions on you as soon as they open their mouths. Books and newspapers are simply creeping with them—the monthly Reviews seem to have room for little else. Wherewithal then shall a young man cleanse his way; how shall he keep his mind immune to Theosophical speculations, and novel schemes of Salvation? Can he ever be sure that he wonʼt be suddenly struck down by the fever of Funeral or of Spelling Reform, or take to his bed with a new Sex Theory?”
Returning to Cioran, he went even further, noting…
“In the fervent mind you always find the camouflaged beast of prey; no protection is adequate against the claws of a prophet… Once he raises his voice, whether in the name of heaven, of the city, or some other excuse… he will not forgive your living on the wrong side of his truths and his transports; he wants you to share his hysteria, his fullness, he wants to impose it on you…. The ages of fervor abound in bloody exploits: a Saint Teresa could only be the contemporary of the auto-da-fé, a Luther of the repression of the Peasantsʼ Revolt. In every mystic outburst, the moans of victims parallel the moans of ecstasy… Scaffolds, dungeons, jails flourish only in the shadow of a faith—of that need to believe… The devil pales beside the man who owns a truth, his truth… The real criminals are men who establish an orthodoxy on the religious or political level, men who distinguish between the faithful and the schismatic.”
“I feel safer with a Pyrrho than with a Saint Paul, for a jesting wisdom is gentler than an unbridled sanctity… Saint Paul—the most considerable vote-canvasser of all time—has made his tours, infesting the clarity of the ancient twilight with his epistles. An epileptic triumphs over five centuries of philosophy! Reason is confiscated by the fathers of the Church! And if I were to look for the most mortifying date for the mindʼs pride, if I were to scan the inventory of intolerances, I would find nothing comparable to the year 529, when, following Justinianʼs decree, the School of Athens was closed. The right to decadence being officially suppressed, to believe became an obligation… This is the most painful moment in the history of Doubt.”
Christian persecution of pagans—exceeded the pagan persecution of early Christians
Christian persecution of fellow Christians—exceeded the pagan persecution of early Christians
Christian persecution of American Indians—exceeded the pagan persecution of early Christians
Decrees of Christian Emperors against non-Trinitarians [at bottom of this piece]
Other Christians (even violently so, from the
Pagans (a derogatory term invented by Christians that they used as a general insult to every Hellenistic teacher, philosopher, worshiper, etc.)
Feminists
Homosexuals
Miscellaneous additional things, Satan, Cats, Forks, Christmas and other Holidays, Plays, The Use of Musical Instruments in Church, The Abolition of Slavery, The Right of Females to Vote, Child Labor Laws, Educational Information About Sex and/or Birth Control, Condoms, Anesthesia & Anesthetics, Cures for Malaria and Syphilis, Gas Lighting and Railways, Beards vs. Bare Chins, Striped Clothes, Split-Breeches, Short Dresses, Long hair (on men), Short hair (on women), Drinking, Dancing, Rock and Roll Music, Playing Cards (or Billiards or Pool), Going to the Movies, Watching TV, Masturbating, Dishwashers, Democracy, Working or Playing on Sunday, Touching Women, and Sex
Interesting information concerning the “Miscellaneous” things:
That includes anything or anyone “connected” in the minds of churchgoers with “Satan,” be they family members, neighbors or foreigners whose beliefs, practices (including items they own, wear or read) are not deemed “Christian” enough. The long list of “doorways,” or entry points for demons, make daily life awkward for some Christians. Members of one North London Church have to avoid, among other things, Care Bears (because they do rituals for healing without invoking the name of Christ), the film E.T., Cabbage Patch Dolls (because they encourage people to treat toys as human), figurines of unicorns (mythological), and frogs (“And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, an out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet;” Rev.16:13). One woman owned a china tea set, passed down in the family as an heirloom; she was persuaded to smash it by another church member, who noticed there was a Chinese dragon in the pattern. A woman who looked after the church childcare was found to be teaching the children relaxation exercises; she was thrown out. All these things, the church elders suppose, might bring demonic influence into the congregationʼs lives.
--Gareth J. Medway, Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism (New York University Press, 2001) And see previous posts on Satan, and also, Exorcisms.
Cats came under suspicion for a variety of reasons. Unlike dogs, they did not behave subserviently toward humans. This was considered unnatural, because it violated the biblical view that humans should have dominion over animals. Also, cats were very active at night and engaged in loud, raucous mating rituals. Though cats had always behaved in this manner, to the superstitious minds of the Middle Ages, cats were practicing supernatural powers and witchcraft. Many accused witches were older peasant women who lived alone, often keeping cats as pets for companionship. This guilt by association meant that cats were burned at the stake, along with their owners, on suspicion of being witches. In the early thirteenth century Pope Gregory IX (1145–1241) declared that a sect in southern France had been caught worshiping the devil. He claimed the devil had appeared in the form of a black cat. Cats became the official symbol of heresy (or religious beliefs not advocated by the church). Anyone who showed any compassion or feeling for a cat came under the churchʼs suspicion. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, Europeʼs cat population had been severely depleted. Only semi-wild cats survived in many areas. [source]
Forks were in use in ancient Egypt, as well as Greece and Rome, but not for eating, just as long-handled cooking tools used for carving or lifting meats from a cauldron or the fire. Most diners ate with their fingers and a knife, which they brought with them to the table. Forks for dining only started to appear in the noble courts of the Middle East and the Byzantine Empire in about the 7th century and became common among wealthy families of the regions by the 10th century. Elsewhere, including Europe, where the favored implements were the knife and the hand, the fork was conspicuously absent. Imagine the astonishment in Europe when in 1004 Maria Argyropoulina, Greek niece of Byzantine Emperor Basil II, showed up in Venice for her marriage to Giovanni, son of the Pietro Orseolo II, the Doge of Venice, with a case of golden forks—and then proceeded to use them at the wedding feast. They werenʼt exactly a hit. She was roundly condemned by the local clergy for her decadence, with one going so far as to say, “God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks—his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to him to substitute artificial metal forks for them when eating.” When Argyropoulina died of the plague two years later, Saint Peter Damian, with ill-concealed satisfaction, suggested that it was Godʼs punishment for her lavish ways. “Nor did she deign to touch her food with her fingers, but would command her eunuchs to cut it up into small pieces, which she would impale on a certain golden instrument with two prongs and thus carry to her mouth. . . . this womanʼs vanity was hateful to Almighty God; and so, unmistakably, did He take his revenge. For He raised over her the sword of His divine justice, so that her whole body did putrefy and all her limbs began to wither.” Doomed by God for using a fork. Life was harsh in the 11th century. After this inauspicious debut, forks were understandably slow to catch on. But Mariaʼs Byzantine manners did make inroads. By the late Middle Ages the spread of forks can be tracked by their appearance in city inventories and as items of value bequeathed in wills. These suckett forks were used primarily for eating candied fruits in syrup or foods likely to stain the fingers. According to some sources, eating sweets with a fork was a practice common among courtesans, causing the Church to ban forks as immoral. -- Chad Ward, The Uncommon Origins of the Common Fork (See also Feeding Desire: Design and the Tools of the Table 1500-2005 (a book and an exhibit at the Smithsonian); and, Evil Tines: The fork, devilish and maligned, was the last of the utensils to arrive at the table.)
Puritans of Britain and America banned the celebration of Christmas (and other holidays), along with the performances of plays.
Although the Protestant Reformer John Calvin believed in the singing of hymns in church he was set against accompanying such singing with any kind of instrumental music (or of singing complex harmonies for that matter). There was no instrumental music in Strassburg or Geneva so long as Calvin controlled the services. The tubes of the organ in the Genevan church of St. Peterʼs were melted down in 1562 and turned into cups for holding communion wine. Calvin believed he was purifying the western church from recent musical innovations. In his opinion musical instruments and complex hymnody were all part of the corruptions introduced by the Roman Church. Calvin was concerned that love of instrumental music (and the human voice singing complex harmonies) were forms of idolatry and detracted from what was most important, namely to hear the Bible preached. Being Genevaʼs leading preacher (and the theologian with all the answers as he saw it) of course had nothing to do with Calvinʼs decision to ban instrumental music and complex hymnody in church, which he claimed was based purely on the teachings of Scripture (as he understood them):
If we now consider it to be necessary we shall return to our former darkness and obscure the light which appeared in the Son of God. The Papacy was guilty of foolish and ridiculous imitation when it decorated churches and thought to offer God a more worthy service by employing organs and other follies of that sort. By these the Word and worship of God are profaned, for the people interest themselves in these things more than in the Divine Word. Where there is no intelligence there is no edification . . . That which was useful under the Law has no place under the Gospel, and we must abstain from such things not only as superfluous, but as frivolous. All that is needed in the praise of God is a pure and simple modulation of the voice. Instrumental music was tolerated because of the condition of the people. They were, Scripture tells us, children who used childish toys which must be put away if we wish not to destroy evangelical perfection and quench the light we have received through Christ. [John Calvin, 66th Homily on 1 Samuel, as cited in Hugh Young Reyburn, John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914, pp. 85-86]
But when they [believers] frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews . . . but we should always take care that no corruption creep in which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. [Commentary on Psalms, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 539]
. . . musical instruments were among the legal ceremonies which Christ at his coming abolished; and therefore we, under the Gospel, must maintain a greater simplicity. [Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, Vol .1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 263]
. . . We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit, when Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue. [Commentary on Psalms, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 98]
Final three quotations from W. Robert Godfrey, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009, pp. 74-75.
Right up till the Civil War, most American Christian denominations in both the North and the South agreed in frowning upon anyone who held strict anti-slavery views or who considered slavery to be a “sin,” since the Bible never declared slavery to be a “sin.”. See The Civil War as a Theological Crisis and Holy War, and A Rational Response to the film Amazing Grace.
Many churchmen in the U.S. opposed the attempt by women to gain the right to vote.
Many churchmen frowned on laws to keep children in school and instead argued strongly in favor of allowing children the freedom to earn pitiful wages in an unsafe mine or factory (or in a church-run work house linked to a nunnery or monastery).
During the last century in America people were fined or sent to prison for disobeying various laws made by Christians (viz., the Comstock Laws) against disseminating educational information about sex and/or birth control. Such information was even forbidden from being sent through the mail in plain brown envelopes when specifically requested.
The Catholic Church continues to forbid the use of condoms (as well as coitus interruptus) no matter how many children a woman has borne, no matter the state of her health, and no matter how many children a family, city, country or planet can afford to safely sustain. (Though in late 2010 the Pope finally issued a statement making it possible to employ a condom not as a contraceptive, but to potentially save a life if the person wearing the condom or the person with whom one was having intercourse had a life-threatening illness such as AIDS.)
Some devout Christians have argued that God gave us pain to teach us spiritual lessons and we must not interfere with the Lordʼs lesson plan by alleviating that pain. Even Mother Teresa, who founded the Sisters of Charity in India in the late 20th century was averse to the use of anesthetics. She repeated the story of her meeting with a man who was suffering painfully with cancer. She told the man, “Jesus is kissing you,” and added that the man replied, “Then I wish he would stop.” Some Christians were against a womanʼs pain being relieved during childbirth (via anesthesia/anesthetics) because the Bible states in the book of Genesis that God cursed woman by “multiplying her pain during childbirth,” and who were we to defy the Lord?
Protestants rejected early cures for malaria and syphilis because Catholics were the first to come up with them. [See Diarmaid MacCullochʼs The Reformation: A History]
Pope Gregory XVI (1765–1846) and Cardinal Lambruschini opposed basic technological innovations such as gas lighting and railways, believing that they would promote commerce and increase the power of the bourgeoisie, leading to demands for liberal reforms which would undermine the monarchical power of the Pope over central Italy. Gregory XVI in fact banned railways in the Papal States, calling them chemins dʼenfer (literally “road to hell,” a play on the French for railroad, chemin de fer, literally “iron road”).
“Beards—especially among clergy—were once serious, symbolic matters. They separated East from West during the Great Schism, priests from laity during the Middle Ages, and Protestants from Catholics during the Reformation. Some church leaders required them; others banned them. To medieval theologians, they represented both holiness and sin,” from The Wars Over Christian Beards: Church Leaders Have Almost Always Faced Off Over Pastorsʼ Shaving Habits by Ted Olsen, Christianity Today, August 28, 2013.
Even today you can read about Christians arguing over the question with many conservative Christian seminaries still refusing to let students wear beards. See A Bewhiskered Believer Bewildered by Beard-Hating Brethren. But other Christians support beards so much that they see hints of Satanʼs influence in todayʼs tendency for men to remain clean shaven: “Satan is working overtime to blur the lines between a man and a woman... One way Satan has done this is to make society have a more negative view on beards, as well as other gender distinctions.” But the author adds, “Some men may not be able to grow a beard... Thatʼs understandable, and sometimes youʼve gotta do what youʼve gotta do,” but still, “The Bible makes a strong case that growing a beard is an honor for a man, and glory to God.”
See the book, The Devilʼs Cloth: A History of Stripes and Striped Fabric (Columbia U. Press) that begins with a medieval scandal. When the first Carmelites arrived in France from the Holy Land, the religious order required its members to wear striped habits, prompting turmoil and denunciations in the West that lasted fifty years until the order was forced to accept a quiet, solid color. The medieval eye found any surface in which a background could not be distinguished from a foreground disturbing. Thus, striped clothing was relegated to those on the margins or outside the social order—-jugglers and prostitutes, for example-—and in medieval paintings the devil himself is often depicted wearing stripes. The West has a long history of dressing its slaves and servants, its crewmen and convicts in stripes, thus “marking” marginalized members of society.
The Protestant leader, John Calvin, argued that a popular form of pants known as “split-breeches,” filled people with too much pride, so they were outlawed in Geneva, Switzerland.
Many Christians were against them.
Ever heard of Prohibition?
In the 1880s Josephine Cochrane invented the dishwashing machine... From 1913 on there was a dishwasher in every... (no, not even in every grand hotel--just some of them). The Victorian prejudice was strong against denying women the devotional labor to which God had called them. There were clergymen who actually called the dishwasher immoral. [Alistair Cooke, “A Giant Step for Womankind,” Letter from America section of BBC World News, Monday, 29 May, 2000]
John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, called democracy “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.” In 1800 the Christian president of Yale University, Timothy Dwight, said: “The great object of democracy is to destroy every trace of civilization in the world and force mankind back into a savage state…We have a country governed by blockheads and knaves. [And after supplying some examples he added] Can the imagination paint anything more dreadful this side of Hell?” Pope Gregory XVI, the head of the Catholic Church from 1831-1846, said, “From the polluted fountain of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather, raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience for everyone. From this comes, in a word, the worst plague of all, namely, unrestrained liberty of opinion and freedom of speech… It is in no way lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, of writing, or of religion, as if they were so many rights that nature has given man.” Todayʼs Reconstructionist Christians want America to become a “limited democracy under God [meaning under Old Testament Laws].”
Colonists in early America were divided over whether or not to join a War for Independence and democracy in defiance of Britainʼs rule by God and King. About 1/3rd of American colonists supported British rule, 1/3 supported a revolution, and 1/3rd attempted to stay neutral, because after all, St. Paul commanded that Christians ought to “obey the powers that be,” adding that such powers do not “bear the sword in vain.” Even members of The New England Clergy declared the Declaration of Independence “a wicked thing.” Christians remained bitterly divided on such matters, including the value of having a “democracy,” right up to the second war with Britain in 1812.
In the days of the first Roman Christian Emperor, Constantine, the Old Testament command forbidding “work on the Sabbath=Saturday,” was reinterpreted so as to forbid “work on the new “Christian” Sabbath=Sunday.” James I [who became king of England in 1603 and authorized the King James Bible] thumbed his nose at the wishes of Puritansʼ to keep Sunday a day of holy rest by issuing a Declaration to His Subjects, Concerning Lawful Sports to Be Used, otherwise know as The Book of Sports--a list of the sports and games one could lawfully engage in after church on Sunday. The controversy that followed was so volatile that a 17th-century historian cited it as one of the leading causes of the English Civil War, and modern day historian Alistair Dougall agrees, pointing out that the kingʼs declaration was a key factor in Englandʼs eventual descent into civil war because cultural divisions over traditional revelry played an important role in determining allegiances. [See, The Devilʼs Book: Charles I, The Book of Sports and Puritanism in Tudor and Early Stuart England]. Meanwhile in America (Puritan New England) the prohibition against working on Sunday was enforced with the utmost strictness. A public flogging was the penalty for violation. No food could be cooked, no beds were to be made, cutting hair and shaving were prohibited. A mother could not kiss her child on the Sabbath. Riding on this holy day or walking in the garden was prohibited. Even a sick relative or friend could not be visited if it were necessary to ride to his house. The only thing permitted was to walk “reverently to and from church.” Even as late as the early 1900s in America stores remained closed on Sunday, which was the working manʼs only day off. Also closed were parks, lakes, beaches, museums, theaters, even pharmacies (so you had best stock up on grandmaʼs heart medication the day before Sunday). If you went out sailing heaven forbid a storm should arise and your boat should capsize because there were even laws in America against rowing out to save drowning people on Sunday. [See KEEPING THE LORDʼS DAY “HOLY” IN AMERICA]
It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]... For I would that all men were even as I myself [celibate]. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I... But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn... I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be... Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife... The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none… He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit... that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction. [Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:1,7,8-9,26-27,29,32-35]
In the first times, it was the duty to use marriage... chiefly for the propagation of the human race. But now, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship... they who wish to contract marriage for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence. But I am aware of some that murmur, “What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?” Would that all would... Much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle Paul exhort to, when he says, “I would that all were as myself;” or in that passage, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 29-31) [Saint Augustine [354-430 CE], On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10]
In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wifeʼs breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wifeʼs virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings. [Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26]
Nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women and those bodily contacts that belong to the married state. [Augustine, De Trinitate]
I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked. [Saint Jerome, 342-420 CE]
Saint Jerome conquered his carnal visions of dancing maidens by throwing himself in tears before a crucifix, beating his breast with a stone, and fleeing into the desert. [John Dollison, Pope-Pourri]
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux threw himself into half-frozen ponds to free himself from sexual temptation. He also wrote lengthy commentaries on the Bibleʼs Song of Songs (also called “The Song of Solomon”) “to prove it was not about sex”--a feat without equal in the history of Biblical interpretation… for its foolhardiness.
I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne [of the Lord] . . . and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. [The Bible, The Book of Revelation 14: 2-4]
Moses said it was important for Israelite men to “come not at their wives” before “meeting the Lord” (The Bible, The Book of Exodus 19:15,17)
Jesus said, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” (The Bible, The Gospel of Matthew 19:12)
Some Christians reject having sex for any reason, from Catholic priests, monks, and nuns, to Protestants like the Shakers (who only remained a viable sect for about 200 years via adopting children) to the Skoptze, a Russian Christian sect from the 1700 and 1800s and the most radical of all. Male Skoptzies cut off their testicles and scrotums. Female members mutilated their vulvas, breasts and nipples. (“For the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Luke 23:29) They taught that if you also removed your penis (or removed both breasts if you were female) you would be granted the highest honors in heaven. Apparently with the aid of a perfect holy book like the Bible and with the promise of the Holy Spirit to “lead believers into all truth,” this was the truth that the Skoptzies came up with. Bodily sexual temptations could lead to hell, so if mutilating the body aided a person in denying those temptations, it increased oneʼs chances of avoiding hell and attaining heaven. Some individual Christians even today have been known to cut off their “offending members.”
God made it so easy to find the “one true faith” that your parents can pick it out for you even before you are born, and, in most places on earth, they do. Itʼs even easier to find a “true” Christian as opposed to a false one, or a “true” Moslem as opposed to a false one: The “true” believer—the one who understands what their religion "really" teaches, or what their holy book “really” says—always happens to be the one addressing you.
— ETB
Iʼve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith—it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
— Robert A. Heinlein (Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land)One day a man was asked if there were any true atheists. Do you think, he replied, that there are any true Christians?
— Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
Live long enough and youʼll encounter a lot of folks who say you are not a “true” Christian. Iʼve found the “no-true-Christian-would-do-or-believe-XYZ” game one of the more popular among, well, Christians.
— Jonathan (at the yahoo group ExitFundyism)
Were the Protestant leaders, Martin Luther and John Calvin, “true Christians?” If so, then that proves a “true Christian” can believe that a society in which Christians rule also ought to implement Old Testament laws, because those were revealed by God to be of the greatest satisfaction to Himself and to society. Both Luther and Calvin defended such a view, namely that it was the duty of public rulers and public magistrates to persecute “heretics” as well as exile Jews (or worse if you read what Luther thought ought to be done to them), and execute witches.
— ETB
From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers — to hell raisers and serpent-handlers;
From those who believe nearly everyone (excepting themselves and their church) will be damned — to those who believe everyone may eventually be saved (“Universalist” Christians);
From those who argue that they are predestined to argue in favor of predestination — to those who argue for free will of their own free will;
From those who argue God is a “Trinity” — to “Unitarian” Christians (which include not only the “Arian” churches of early Christianity, but also modern day Unitarian-Universalist churches, Oneness Pentecostal churches, some modern day Messianic Jewish groups, some primitive Baptist groups, other Jesus-loving sects/cults, and, all of Judaism (which isnʼt “Christian,” but itʼs worth mentioning here that Godʼs chosen people in the earliest “Testament” where taught, “The Lord Your God is One God”);
From those who “hear the Lord” telling them to run for president, seek diamonds and gold (via liaisons with bloody African dictators), or sell “Lake of Galilee” beauty products (see Rev. Pat Robertson) — to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata (Catholics);
From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that — to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into “invisible” flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with miraculous tales of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass);
From those who believed that priests who delivered communion should never have ever denied their faith in the past even under threat of persecution — to those who believed it did not matter whether or not priests forsook their faith when threatened with persecution (I am speaking of a major controversy in early Christianity between “Donatist” and “Catholic” Christians, both of whom presumed they were the true church on the basis of the division cited above, a division that was never healed, and which ceased only after the North African region where most Donatist churches were located was overrun first by Vandals then later by Muslims.);
From the many Christians that once taught (or teach today as Reconstructionist Christians do) that heretics and apostates ought to be executed — to Albigensian and Cathar Christians who outlawed violence and taught that the shedding of blood and the killing of any living thing, even the slaughtering of a chicken or ensnaring a squirrel, was a mortal sin (a belief they based on the spirituality and metaphors of Christʼs meekness and forgiveness in the Gospel of John). [See The YellowCross: The Story of the Last Catharsʼ Rebellion Against the Inquisition 1290-1329 by René Weis];
From Christians who believe in damning their enemies by calling down Godʼs wrath on them (as in certain imprecatory psalms) and who cite the verse, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” — to Amish Christians (among others) who believe in helping the families of those who have offended them. (Case in point, in 2006 a man entered an Amish schoolhouse, gunned down several young female students then shot himself. The Amish later asked what they could do to help the family of the shooter. They planned a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Robertsʼs family with offers of food and condolences.);
From Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as “Satanic” — to Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoguing with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests;
From those who find demons or Satan at work in their fellow Christians and who stress the importance of “deliverance” services — to those who believe demons and Satan were defeated by Jesus when he was enthroned at Godʼs right hand(Preterist inerrantist Christians) and donʼt believe either demons or Satan have power over Christians today — to liberals who donʼt believe in a literal “Satan;”
From those who stress New Testament commands to not judge anyone outside (or inside) the church (depending on the passage of Scripture one reads), who also believe in the blessings of “peacemaking,” who “love enemies” and “control their tongues” that are the “rudders” of their souls, who also believe in following the command to act “meekly” and “humbly” even in the face of curses from others and certain death, and hence who have little difficulty getting along even with those whose beliefs differ radically from their own (1 Peter 2:21-23; 1 Cor. 4:5, 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 2 Cor. 10:1; Matthew 5:5-9, Matthew 5:44; Col. 3:8, Col. 3:17, Col. 4:5-6; James 4:11-12) — to those who believe itʼs best to ridicule and curse “enemies of God,” just as Jesus, Paul, and the prophets once did;
From those who cultivated the castrati (boys in Catholic choirs who underwent castration to retain their high voices) — to the development of Protestant hymns and Gospel quartets — to “Christian rap” and “Christian death metal;”
From those who reject any behavior that even mimics “what homosexuals do” (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between a husband and wife) — to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups like the nationwide Metropolitan Baptist Church);
From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies — to Christian nudists (viz., there was a sect known as the “Adamites,” not to mention modern day Christians in Florida with their own nude Christian churches, campgrounds and even an amusement park), and letʼs not forget born-again strippers [click here for more info];
From those who believe that a husband and wife can have sex for pleasure — to those who believe that sex should be primarily for procreation — to those who believe celibacy is superior to marriage (i.e., Catholic priests, monks, nuns, and some Protestant groups like the Shakers who denied themselves sexual pleasure and only maintained their membership by adopting abandoned children until the last Shaker finally died out in the late 1900s) — all the way to those who cut off their genitals for the kingdom of God (the Skoptze, a Russian Christian sect) [click here for more info];
From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential — to the Anti-Mission Baptists who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of “extra-congregational missionary organizations” is not Biblical;
From those who believe that the King James Bible is the only inspired translation — to those who believe that no translation is totally inspired, only the original “autographs” were perfect — to those who believe that “perfection” only lay in the “spirit” that inspired the writing of the Bibleʼs books, not in the “letter” of the books themselves;
From those who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics) — to those who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox). And, from those who believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholics) — to those who believe it proceeds from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox view as taught by the early Church Fathers). Those disagreements, as well as others, sparked the greatest schism of church history (the Schism of 1054) when the uncompromising patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and the envoys of the uncompromising Pope Leo IX, excommunicated each other, thus dividing the Christians of the eastern and western Roman Empire;
From those who worship God on Sunday — to those who worship God on Saturday (Saturday being the Hebrew “sabbath” that God said to “keep holy” according to one of the Ten Commandments) — all the way to those who believe their daily walk with God and love of their fellow man is more important than church attendance;
From those who stress “Godʼs commands” — to those who stress “Godʼs love;”
From those who believe that you need only accept Jesus as your “personal savior” to be saved — to those who believe you must accept Jesus as both savior and “Lord” of your life in order to be saved. (Two major Evangelical Christian seminaries debated this question in the 1970s, and still disagree);
From those who teach that being “baptized with water as an adult believer” is an essential sign of salvation — to those who deny it is;
From those who believe that unbaptized infants who die go straight to hell — to those who deny the (once popular) church doctrine known as “infant damnation.”
From those who teach that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” along with “speaking in tongues” are important signs of salvation — to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in modern day “Spirit baptism” and “tongue-speaking”);
From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, contemporary Christian music, movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important signs of being saved — to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved;
From those who disagree whether the age of the cosmos should be measured in billions or only thousands of year — whether God pops new creatures into existence or subtly alters old ones — even some who disagree whether the earth goes round the sun or vice versa;
From pro-slavery Christians (there are some today who still remind us that the Bible never said slavery was a “sin”) — to anti-slavery Christians;
From Christians who defend the Biblical idea of having a king (and who oppose democracy as “the meanest and worst of all forms of government” to quote John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with whom some Popes agreed, as well as some of todayʼs Protestant Reconstructionist Christians)—to Christians who oppose kingships and support democracies;
From “social Gospel” Christians — to “uncompromised Gospel” Christians;
From Christians who do not believe in sticking their noses in politics — to coup dʼetat Christians;
From “stop the bomb” Christians — to “drop the bomb” Christians;
From Christians who expect in a highly enthusiastic fashion that they could rocket through the air at any moment to be with their Lord — to those with other interpretations concerning such Bible passages.
All in all, Christianity gives Hinduism with its infinite variety of sects and practices a run for its money.
Determining whether or not you are a true Christian has never been more imperative than today! According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press, 2001 edition), Christianity now has 150 major ecclesiastical traditions and 33,800 distinct denominations, dioceses, jurisdictions, missions, assemblies, and fellowships. So, the odds that the tradition or denomination you belong to is the “true one” do not look good! Never fear, this simple quiz can help determine whether you are a true Christian. All you need do is “Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay.”
Do you lead “a sober and upright existence?” (Titus 2:11-13) (Or do you lean a little to the left?)
Are you afraid of being locked out of the heavenly wedding party for being a “foolish virgin?” (Did you ever get a foolish virgin in trouble?)
When Jesus said, “Depart from me you accursed into the hellfire prepared for the devil and his angels,” do you think he was referring to telemarketers, or you?
Do you fear that when Jesus returns he will “spew” you out of his mouth for being “lukewarm?” (Or do you have no fear Jesus will do that to you, since youʼve eaten Mexican your whole life?)
Do you fear “the blood of other people” will be “on your hands” if you donʼt tell everyone about the Gospel? (Alternatively, do you remember to wash your hands every time you leave a Gospel tract in a rest room?)
Are you ever tempted to “love the world?” (How about after swallowing a handful of Viagra?)
Do you ever wonder why killing Godʼs son was not the greatest sin of all? Or wonder how we could be forgiven for that sin, except by killing another savior whose blood must be shed to “atone” for the sin of killing the first one? And so forth and so on…
End of Quiz
Scoring: If you laughed…even once…youʼre damned.
By the same book they proved that nearly everybody is to be lost, and that all are to be saved; that slavery is a divine institution, and that all men should be free; that polygamy is right, and that no man should have more than one wife; that the powers that be are ordained of God, and that the people have a right to overturn and destroy the powers that be; that all the actions of men were predestined—preordained from eternity, and yet that man is free; that all the heathen will be lost; that all the heathen will be saved; that all men who live according to the light of nature will be damned for their pains; that you must be baptized by sprinkling; that you must be baptized by immersion; that there is no salvation without baptism; that baptism is useless; that you must believe in the Trinity; that it is sufficient to believe in God; that you must believe that a Hebrew peasant was God; that at the same time he was half man, that he was of the blood of David through his supposed father Joseph, who was not his father, and that it is not necessary to believe that Christ was God; that you must believe that the Holy Ghost proceeded; that it makes no difference whether you do or not; that you must keep the Sabbath holy; that Christ taught nothing of the kind; that Christ established a church; that he established no church; that the dead are to be raised; that there is to be no resurrection; that Christ is coming again; that he has made his last visit; that Christ went to hell and preached to the spirits in prison; that he did nothing of the kind; that all the Jews are going to perdition; that they are all going to heaven; that all the miracles described in the Bible were performed; that some of them were not, because they are foolish, childish and idiotic; that all the Bible is inspired; that some of the books are not inspired; that there is to be a general judgment, when the sheep and goats are to be divided; that there never will be any general judgment; that the sacramental bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of God and the Trinity; that they are not changed; that God has no flesh or blood; that there is a place called “purgatory;” that there is no such place; that unbaptized infants will be lost; that they will be saved; that we must believe the Apostlesʼ Creed; that the apostles made no creed; that the Holy Ghost was the father of Christ; that Joseph was his father; that the Holy Ghost had the form of a dove; that there is no Holy Ghost; that heretics should be killed; that you must not resist evil; that you should murder unbelievers; that you must love your enemies; that you should take no thought for the morrow, but should be diligent in business; that you should lend to all who ask, and that One who does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel. [From his Complete Works, Volume 3, About The Bible]
[Jesus commanded] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
- Matthew 5:42Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again… But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Luke 6:30,35
Next time an evangelical Christian targets you with their soul-seeking missiles, tell them to look up the above verses and read them aloud. After which, ask them for their Bible. If they do not give you their Bible then ask them to please turn to the end of the same sermon in which Jesus spoke the verses above, and read aloud what Jesus said at the very end of that sermon, emphasizing the word “doeth”:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father…Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man… And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man.
— Matthew 7:21-24,26
Remind your evangelical friend that if they do not “doeth” what Jesus commandeth them, they risk hearing Jesus say unto them, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity!” Is that what they want to hear Jesus say to them? Or do they want to give you their Bible, since you asked them for it?
After they have handed it over, tell them, “Thank you,” and say that you donʼt want to keep their Bible forever, nor destroy it. You would just like them to read a few books about the Bible, books that take a more “inquisitive” approach to the Bible and Christianity, like the one on this list [click here]. And then you will return their Bible to them.
Speaking of “giving to all who ask,” hereʼs an idea for the IRS to try. They should print Mat. 5:42 and Luke 6:30 on all tax forms. Beneath the verses should be a little note from the IRS that says, “We ask all Bible believing Christians, especially wealthy televangelists and pastors of mega-churches, to not claim religious tax exemptions this year.”
In fact, I invite everyone to ask their “Bible believing Christian” friends for money every day and keep asking, especially any fat cat Christian ministers they might know. Call their TV stations and radio stations, stand up in their mega-churches, etc., and quote the above verses and ask them for money. There is no limit put on the above commands.
