Emerging Feminism (or, Welcome to McChristianity!)

A friend showed me a seemingly exciting website about a new approach to Christianity. Upon further review, however, it was another heretical song and dance. Like McDonald's, if the coffee of traditional Christian doctrine is too cool, then we will just change all the rules and give the consumer what they want!

This may create more consumers, but what if the role of the church is to teach people the TRUE temperature of coffee? Having just arbitrarily changed the core mission, what have these sheep been lead to?

Nothing. They are lead to darkness, lies, emptiness, arbitrary existentialism, and error sweetened with a touch of Christian verbiage to take the pagan edge off.

Take for instance the article below written by a woman concerning her frustrations over not being allowed to teach or have authority over a man (a doctrine which is a clear and redundant teaching of scripture: 1 Cor. 14:34-38, 1 Tim. 3:1, 1 Tim 2:9-14). Evidently, the Emerging/Emergent Church is all about changing all the rules!

http://www.emergingchurch.info/reflection/eruvandi/index.htm

Some excerpts:

"...And though lip-service is given to the important role of women in making the tea, we all know that preaching the word is the most important thing, because that’s what the men say..."

Interesting that she goes on to teach ANYTHING BUT the word, using sweeping generalities and assumptions which are patently wrong.

"...Women have no voice – and part of learning to submit is to accept that. Teach the other women to submit, teach the children..."

This is the type of feminist thought that has lead to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unborn. She is saying that teaching the children, the highest good which could be done on earth 2nd only to winning the children to Christ, is the same as having "no voice." Essentially, she is saying that teaching children is worthless, while female pastoring/teaching is the only worthy avenue to having a 'voice!'

"...I don’t say this to denigrate womens unique specialties – that of mothering and being a listening sister. I say this because in practical realities, these specialties are denigrated by all and sundry to the point of irrelevance..."

She in fact is denigrating women who obey clear scripture and restrain from teaching men. She is judging right and wrong based on the perceived reaction from others ('denigrated by all'), not through a logical evaluation of scripture. Ironically, she is proving in this passage WHY women are not to teach.

"...Even in churches where women are treated with special deference because of their feminine traits, it’s acknowledged that these traits have no place in the assembly..."

She again is talking about teaching and holding authority over a man. She is equating this one gift with the entire value of being a woman. I wonder how she would react to Jesus calling her a dog, like he did in the gospels to a Cannanite woman (Matt 15:21-28)? I submit that she wouldn't have responded in faith. In fact, she might have even written an article on how racist this Jesus character is!

"...Some women, in response to the patent inequalities, battle and strive to be doing the men things in the men ways. They become bullying and competitive..."

The phrase 'patent inequalities' implies an intrinsic truth that not allowing a woman to teach is an inequality. By analogy, is not allowing an illegal alien to drive an inequality? No. This has to do with authoritative qualification. They are NOT QUALIFIED by the legal AUTHORITY over them. She is simply rejecting scriptural authority over her, and electing secular logic as her authority.

"...I don’t find that to be the answer. We aren’t exactly the same as men, and neither should we want to be. But hierarchy among humans is as far away from Christian ideals as it is possible to get..."

'Hierarchy among humans' is a term relating to authority and role. She is saying that males should have no 'hierarchy' over females. She does not scripturally address this issue, instead stating that some indefinable cosmic force deems that Christianity doesn't allow differences in roles between the sexes. Only if you abandon scriptural authority can you even begin to take this point of view. There is hierarchy of the elders over their flock (Heb. 13:7) hierarchy of masters over slaves (Eph 6:5), the body of Christ having differing roles (1Cor. 12:12-26) and, of course, the role of a teacher being uniquely male (1Tim. 2:9-14). Confusing spiritual equality with earthly roles is her secondary problem (1 Cor. 12:13 shows equality in our spiritual positions, not in our earthly duties). Her primary problem, however, is that her ultimate acceptable authority is stated at the beginning of her statement: "I." This is the authority used to redefine 'Christian Ideals' into doctrines which defy scripture.

"...Women must be given a voice – not a patronizing, condescending 'womens meeting’ in which the men ‘allow women to speak in their proper sphere’..."

She states that a biblical approach to authority is "patronizing, condescending." She is saying this, therefore, about the Author of scripture (2 Pet. 1:19-21, 1Cor. 14:38, 4:1, 1 Thess. 4:8). That begs the question, with such bitterness against God and the Holy Spirit (the author of scripture), what exactly CAN she teach others? Certainly nothing regarding scripture, the nature of God, the nature of the Holy Spirit, or submission to any of the three. I posit that she is now instantly disqualified from teaching on this point alone!

"...Nor a church that looks exactly the same as a traditional one, with women simply apeing the male hierarchy, and ‘getting to the top’, by having the ‘prestige’ of being a preacher or pastor.
We must begin to forge church that is both masculine and feminine, where men can lead in male ways, and women can lead in female ways..."

What an elegant solution. God says the church is lead by men, following it up by example when Jesus chose 12 MALE Apostles, and she simply wants to DESTROY and REDEFINE CHURCH! This is Post-Structuralist thought at its finest. This reminds of Bill Clinton, who justified fibbing under oath by undermining and redefining the meaning of the word "is." This also indicates the rapid deterioration of manliness in the church culture. The men are anxious to share the responsibility of leading with women and are gelding themselves willingly by not standing up to the heretical, meandering, and antiscriptural thoughts of both feminized men and women like this.

"...Where we understand the notion of ‘headship’ to belong to Christ alone. Where women know their own sinfulness doesn’t reside in their abilities to teach and enable growth in other believers, and where they rightly reject the guilt imposed upon them about these giftings."

Is it a "gifting" to teach a church against the clear teaching of scripture? She should feel guilty for teaching the flock to use sections of scripture as toilet paper simply because she doesn't accept them. I would as soon have Satan himself teaching, so at least they can see the erroneous heresies coming from their true source!

If you are a man then you MUST stand up against erroneous teaching like this, and you MUST stand up against the "Emerging Church" and their effort to make doctrinal error mainstream.

If you believe in the authority of scripture, as I do, then you must obey scripture. After all, even when He really didn't want to, Jesus yielded to the will of his father as revealed in scripture and died, redeeming us in the process. I guess that kind of obedience is just optional for some people!

I highly recommend watching the PBS videos on the following links:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week845/cover.html#
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week846/cover.html#