Interview with Mary Kassian – Part II

July 1, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

This is Part Two of my interview with Mary Kassian (Part One here). I'm grateful to Mrs. Kassian for taking the time to do the interview. For more great resources on Feminism and gender issues in general visit the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.

I have a few Christian friends who consider themselves Feminists. Is it possible to be a Christian and a Feminist?

This depends on your definition of feminism. Personally, I regard feminism as a worldview that is antithetical to Christianity. I do not believe that an individual can be a Christian and a feminist (in the true sense of the word) at the same time.

When I walk into a typical Evangelical church today, what is one of the most glaring impacts of Feminism I will see? What damage is it doing?

The most glaring impact is in people’s “default setting” with regards to male and female roles. In the past, people believed that the husband assuming spiritual leadership in the home and the wife submitting to/supporting that leadership was both proper and good. It was believed to be the natural order of things. Nowadays, the “default setting” is that a gender-specific inequality in role/function is improper, bad, and goes against the natural order of things. The majority of youth in our churches today do not have a clue about what the Bible teaches about male and female. The relational damage is incredible. Statistics demonstrate that church-goers are no more successful than the world-at-large in sustaining healthy marriages. Instead of being salt & light and offering God’s healing to a fractured world, men and women in our evangelical churches are copying the pattern of the world. The way the genders interact within the church is not any different than how they interact outside of it.

Awhile back I read about a father who teaches his children to refer to God as “God the Mommy/Daddy.” I’ve noticed a trend over the years of more and more people who want to refer to God in both genders. What’s the problem with this?

The biggest problem is that God does not refer to himself that way. When we change the words, we change the meaning. Inclusive language sexualizes God, depersonalizes God, attacks God’s character, denies the Trinitarian relationship, obscures the person and work of Christ, obscures humanity’s relationship to God, and confuses personal identity. When we worship God as “mother” or “he/she” we are not worshipping the God of the Bible.

On February 26th of this year Jada Pinkett Smith made a comment that caused quite an uproar. She said, “Women, you can have it all – a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career … You can do whatever it is you want.” In my mind, this is a Feminist statement, but she was in fact criticized for being “heteronormative;” meaning that she was trying to enforce traditional heterosexual gender roles on the audience. In light of your research on Feminism, why was she so angrily denounced?

The reason she was denounced was because she held up the ideal of a heterosexual marriage and children as the epitome of “having it all.” According to feminists, “having it all” means having whatever you want to have: a lesbian relationship, co-habitation, having children without a husband, having no children, having no man. All options are equally valid and good. Feminism is all about giving a woman the power to name and define her own utopia – and to determine whether or not this utopia even includes a man.

It can be easy for someone to be discouraged by the impact Feminism’s had and the grip it holds on our churches and the larger culture. Is there any hope? Or, will it continually get worse?

I believe the youth today are searching for answers. Today’s young women are disillusioned with their mother’s inability to sustain marriages. As I said in my book, “it is in the deepest darkness that the light shines the most brightly.” I believe the time is ripe for a new movement – a seismic holy quake of countercultural men and women who dare to take God at his word, those who have the courage to stand against the popular tide, and believe and delight in God’s plan for male and female.

Category Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »

Interview with Mary Kassian – Part I

June 30, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

This is Part One of my interview with Mary Kassian, author of The Feminist Mistake. The Introduction and first chapter can be read at Crossway's site. You can find out more information about Mrs. Kassian's ministry at www.marykassian.com. Read my review here. Part Two will be posted tomorrow.

In your book you start off with what you see as the first step for Feminism: “Naming Self.” Our culture thrives on the idea that we ought to be free to do whatever we please. In seeking this freedom to name ourselves how are we stepping outside the bounds of Scripture?

In the very first chapter of the Bible we are told, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27 ESV). Being created in the image of God indicates that we are not free to define ourselves as we choose. Our responsibility, rather, is to reflect the glory of God – to honor his image in the manner in which he specifies it ought to be honored. Many people believe that that are free to do whatever they please. But God disagrees. He confronts those with this attitude with the accusation: “You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me” or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?” (Isa. 29:16 ESV) The clear message here is that claiming the right to name oneself is an affront to God. He is the Creator. He is the One with understanding. He is the Potter – the one who dictates what “shape” our lives ought to take.

What’s the difference between what you describe as “Naming” and what Adam did with the authority God granted him in Genesis 2:19-20?

God granted Adam authority to name. In other words, Adam did not claim the right to name for himself. His “naming” simply fulfilled the directive of his Creator. It is also important to note that responsibility was part and parcel of the delegated authority. “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” (Gen. 2:15 ESV). Thus, even though man had the right to name creation, he did not have the right to do whatever he pleased. Adam was responsible to his Creator to “work” and “keep” creation. He was God’s delegate, and thus accountable to God for his actions. Adam’s “right” to name was only within the parameters that God established. This is very different than the “naming” feminism advocates. Feminism claims that women can claim the right to name themselves, their world, and God – free of any external parameters. According to feminism, a woman has the right to make the rules.The next phase of Feminism you describe is “Naming the World.”

During my undergraduate studies I noticed that a number of “Women’s Studies” classes were listed as G.E. options. In a nutshell, what is it that students are learning in these classes and why is it harmful?

Women’s Studies classes are a very effective tool for brainwashing students in feminist philosophy. The reason these classes are harmful is that they go way beyond a mere dissemination of information. The goal, rather, is to convince the students that women’s experience (as viewed through a feminist lens) is the only legitimate source of truth and value. The classes are structured to encourage students to challenge, deconstruct and reject any semblance of a Judeo-Christian world-view. In other words, the goal is not education, but rather a systematic process of “conversion” to a feminist worldview. To this end, the classes employ a number of unconventional teaching devices and techniques, including “consciousness raising” (CR). As the National Women’s Studies Association noted, women’s studies is an “educational strategy: a breakthrough in consciousness and knowledge” whose purpose is to “transform individuals, institutions, relationships, and, ultimately, the whole of society.”

In talking about the third phase, “Naming God,” you describe a number of occult practices that have been embraced by Feminists. Are these practices normative for Feminists or does what you describe only apply to a few Feminists who are extreme?

This is a difficult question to answer, because I believe that feminism has been so thoroughly mainstreamed into our culture that we are all (to one extent or another) feminists. I believe that the occult has also been popularized and mainstreamed. Auras, karmas, horoscopes, meditation, yoga – many popular expressions of spirituality are laced with vestiges of the occult. Just think of the book, “The Da Vinci Code.” New Age and occult spirituality are all around us. Certainly there are some hard-core feminists who are also hard-core occultists, involved in overt witchcraft practices. But there are also many women, (who may or may not call themselves feminists), who, in embracing a metaphysical pop spirituality, have also unwittingly embraced the occult.

One page 277 you claim that Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) “appears to be drifting away from orthodoxy.” What, fundamentally, is the problem with CBE?

Members of Christians for Biblical Equality have, in the past several years, begun proposing ideas that are quite unorthodox, theologically. For example, Mimi Haddad, the president of CBE, maintains that it is entirely appropriate for us to call God: “Mother,” “Mother/Father,” or “Heavenly Parent.” Gilbert Bileziekien, another CBE supporter, has argued against the orthodox belief that Jesus the Son of God is equal yet subordinate to the Father. He maintains that Jesus only submitted himself during the incarnation, and was not eternally submissive. CBE theologians argue against this foundational doctrine of the Trinity because it supports the possibility of a complimentarian framework. If equality and role difference are present in the Trinity, and male and female are created in God’s image, then it follows that male and female can be equal and yet have different roles. Thus, some CBE theologians argue that the Father and Son only temporarily assumed roles for the sake of redemption (their roles are not eternal) the Son does not eternally submit to the Father. Other CBE theologians have argued that it was not necessary for Jesus to be incarnated as a male – were it not for culture, he could have just as easily been born a woman. Theologically, this does not mesh with the need for Christ to be the “last Adam,” (a male) in order to secure salvation: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor. 15:22,45). CBE is also heavily supportive of gender-neutral Bible translations, which blur important theological distinctions. For example, neutering the term “sons of God” to read, “children of God,” obscures a believer’s personal identification with Jesus Christ – THE Son of God.

A number of widely respected people are on the CBE Board of Reference– including Gordon Fee, Richard Foster, Craig Keener, and Ruth Tucker. Should we be more critical of their other work because of their relationship with CBE?

I believe we should be “critical” of everyone’s work – mine included. No one is exempt from having “blind spots” when it comes to understanding and applying God’s Word. Fee, Foster, Keener, and Tucker have made important contributions to theology. I believe these believers are not correct with regards to their stance on what the Bible teaches on male and female, but that does not automatically negate the value of the rest of their work. I encourage all believers to search the Scriptures in order to determine which parts of an author’s work are in line with God’s Word, and which aren’t. God’s Word is infallible – but contemporary authors and theologians are not.

Category Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 10 Comments »

Without Strong Convictions, We’ll Be Lost

June 28, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Last week, the comments took an unexpected turn, and we discussed the need for strong convictions in the church here and here. In this postmodern culture, it is thought that we can never know reality as it truly is because we’re trapped inside our own narrow perspective and language. Since right and wrong are only what we create them to be, every person’s perspective is equally valid. Therefore, to say that I am right and someone else is wrong is to make a meaningless statement at best and an oppressive power play at worst. It is best, then, (our culture tells us) to not believe too strongly in anything (especially in any religion) since the greatest danger to the world lies with those deluded people who think they know the truth and think others are wrong. But if the culture is wrong and there is objective truth and goodness, then the greatest danger will come from not having strong convictions about truth.

When I finally gave in and saw Revenge of the Sith last weekend, I was struck by how well Anakin’s fall illustrates the danger of not having solid answers. In the crucial moment of Anakin’s turning, he is caught between a Jedi and a Sith. Each is trying to convince Anakin that he is in the right. Unfortunately, Anakin is confused–he had not become convinced of the truth before this moment of testing. Without strong convictions based on knowledge about what is true, he has only his emotions to guide him, and of course, emotions are easily manipulated.

Obi-Wan recognizes that his apprentice is lost when Anakin says that, contrary to Obi-Wan’s perspective, from his point of view the Jedi are evil. Obi-Wan knows that postmodernism is wrong–there is a correct point of view; and, like Anakin, if we don’t work hard to understand what that correct view is so that we are certain enough to stand solidly on that truth despite the personal cost, we also will be directed by our own self-interested desires and feelings and be easily manipulated by those who are not seeking truth and goodness. We’ll be lost.

Instead, we must seek the strength of answers. We must “be transformed by the renewing of [our minds], so that [we] may prove what the will of God is” (Romans 12:2). We are to increase our knowledge–and our confidence in that knowledge–so that “we are no longer…tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:11-14). We must do this, because those who do not have strong convictions become the pawns of those who do.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page 2 Comments »

The case for church membership

June 26, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Here’s a question I’ve been knocking around with a brother at work: Is
the doctrine (requirement) of church membership biblical? If not, then
the arguments for church membership will have to rest on practical or
traditional reasons, and it will be up to the individual believer to
opt in or out. I'd like to argue, however, that a strong biblical case
for church membership can be
made.

First of all, I acknowledge that there's no explicit command to join a
local church as an official member. But the lack of explicit teaching
certainly doesn't mean that a particular doctrine isn't valid. The
doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is nowhere explicit but nearly
everywhere implicit. (Of course, the relationships between the
different aspects of the doctrine of church membership are certainly
not as mysterious [in a non-fideistic sense] as they are between the
persons in the Trinity!)

The most important verse in which church membership is implicit is Heb.
13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping
watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”
Earlier, in v7, we find out that the leaders are “those who spoke to
you the word of God,” which rules out any kind of civil authority. And
elsewhere (1 Pet. 5:1-2, for example), we see that elders are the ones
designated
to provide this kind of leadership (i.e., designated to “shepherd the
flock”). So my first point would be that it's difficult to obey and
submit to your leaders if you don't have any leaders! Now clearly there
are all sorts of people in our lives that offer spiritual guidance and
exercise spiritual authority—but Heb. 13:17 seems to be talking
specifically about church elders. Which brings me to my second point
…

I find it difficult to believe that Paul would go to the trouble of
laying out the detailed requirements for church leadership (in 1
Timothy 3 and Titus 1) if church membership wasn't a big deal. So
between these two passages (Heb. 13 and 1 Tim. 3/Tit. 1), we have
requirements for both church leaders (husband of one wife, etc.) and
church members (obey and submit to your leaders)—which seems to
indicate that local church membership, if not absolutely required, was
the ideal (or at least the assumption) and should therefore be the goal
for us.

Another crucial reason for church membership is discipline. In a
nutshell, church discipline involves the authority to excommunicate a
member in the hopes that he will repent and be received back into the
body of Christ. There are those (let’s call them “membership skeptics”)
who insist that this is possible without the confines of official
membership—but how? If I'm persistently sinning in such a way so as to
require discipline, yet I don't belong to a church, then from what can
I be excommunicated? And who will do the excommunicating? It would
seem, then, that to the extent that church discipline is mandated in
the Bible, church membership is also mandated in the
Bible.

And finally, there is ample evidence of the “like-mindedness” of the
early believers (Acts 4:32 “Now the full number of those who believed
were of one heart and soul”; Col. 2:2 “that their hearts may be
encouraged, being knit together in love”; Eph. 4:3 “eager to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”). Practically (but
biblically!) speaking, it seems difficult to determine who is of like mind (i.e.,
who is of one heart and soul) without some sort of membership
requirement (which usually includes a formal confession of faith or
doctrinal statement). There are also passages—Rom. 16:1; Ph'p. 4:3;
Col. 4:9—in which Christians appear to have been publicly known to be
visibly connected with a particular local body, indicating an
expectation toward local church membership.

In sum: there are (at least) several key passages in Scripture that
imply or assume some sort of church membership. Although I’m not trying
to make any claims about the specific policies or traditions that might
characterize a particular church’s membership practices (in fact, I’ve
been deliberately vague—“goal,” “expectation,” etc.—about what
requirements a biblical doctrine of church membership might impose upon
us) I do think that the case laid out above has some implications for
how (or whether) we go about finding and joining a church.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General), Theology Comments 1 Comment »

Practicing Humility

June 26, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Joel Olsteen’s generated a lot of heat over his
prosperity/self-esteem gospel. So much heat that I don’t recall ever hearing
anything good about him. I doubt emergent people care for him much either since
he preaches to a congregation of 30,000 and hundreds of thousands more through
television. That’s a mega-church if there’s ever been one. Then, of course,
there’s also a best-selling book to top off his popularity.

Regardless of all the problems we might have with this man
and/or his ministry, I think he deserves props. Last Monday he was interviewed on
Larry King Live and, apparently, dropped the ball when it came to articulating
the Gospel. In response, his ministry received some significant amount of mail
concerning the interview. There is now a letter of apology on Joel Olsteen’s
website:

It was never my desire or intention to leave any doubt as to
what I believe and Whom I serve. I believe with all my heart that it is
only through Christ that we have hope in eternal life. I regret and
sincerely apologize that I was unclear on the very thing in which I have
dedicated my life.

Jesus declared in John 14; I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.
I believe that Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation. However,
it wasn’t until I had the opportunity to review the transcript of the interview
that I realize I had not clearly stated that having a personal relationship
with Jesus is the only way to heaven. It’s about the individual’s
choice to follow Him.

God has given me a platform to present the Gospel to a very
diverse audience. In my desire not to alienate the people that Jesus came
to save, I did not clearly communicate the convictions that I hold so precious.

Last week Dennis Prager talked about the must
fundamental element of an apology- saying what you did wrong. Joel Olsteen has
clearly stated what he did wrong, while also affirming the exclusivity of
Christ, and he has posted this publicly on the front page of his website. I can
only hope that if I were ever to be in such a circumstance I would be able to
react with such humility that Mr. Olsteen has shown here.
(HT: Justin Taylor)

Category Posted in Main Page, Religion (General), Roger's Posts 2 Comments »

Can anyone else relate to this?

June 25, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

If you can, then you'll probably also enjoy these two fine short films:

“Pink Five” and “Pink Five Strikes Back“

And you might as well admit it–you know what these films are going to be about before you even click on them, don't you. Yeah, I thought so. But it's okay, because we encourage nerd- and geekdom here.

Even you non-nerds and geeks (few though you may be) ought to watch. It's your duty in this multicultural society to help give a platform to a minority voice of the Rebel Alliance–the little-known fighter pilot, Stacey. Too long has her voice been silenced.

(Cartoon by The New Yorker's William Haefeli)

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous 2 Comments »

Parody News

June 24, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Firefighters announced today the end of major fire combat. “We're
not out of the woods. Are we feeling good about it? Yes,” said Jim
Clawson, a liaison officer with the team fighting the fire. The fire has
raged through 46,000 acres in Arizona destroying ten cabins and two homes.

Happy Fish, director of Nature’s Environment Now (N.E.N.),
issued a press release responding to this move by fire officials. “They’re not
telling the American citizens the entire story. The wind may have shifted
directions, but the fire’s still blazing. The reality is that they have no real
timetable to remove our people from the front lines. If nature started the
fire, nature will end it when the timing’s right.”

Mr. Fish’s call for a timetable was echoed by an Arizona
government official, “What we need is a strategy for fighting fires. We don’t
have one. Meanwhile our tax dollars are being wasted fighting a fire with no
end in sight, also while putting our children, spouses, parents, siblings,
cousins, roommates, neighbors, and party crashers in extreme danger. For the
good of the people of Arizona our people need to come home and come home soon.”

Bewildered by these statements, a fire chief
responded, “They simply fail to understand the nature of fire. It’s not
something we can control. We do our best to fight it and most of the time we
succeed. Our men are doing an outstanding job and will continue to do so. Going
home now will only put more homes and properties at risk. We don’t determine
the end of combat by how long it’s gone on or by how much loss we've sustained, but by achieving victory. When the
fire’s gone we’ll come home.”

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Politics, Roger's Posts No Comments »

What's Worth Dying For?

June 23, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

People
throughout history have found numerous different things to die for.
Some die for ideologies, some for other people, some for their country
or community, and some for material possessions. Yesterday, Brian
McLaren was interviewed on The Frank Pastore Show. I wasn’t able to
catch all of it, but from what I heard it seemed that Mr. Pastore was
mostly affirming of McLaren.

He
did ask one question that I found very interesting. What is worth dying
for? McLaren’s response: “I don’t like having to answer certain
questions to prove I love God.” He then went on about doing good things
as a sign of love for God. The problem, which should be obvious, is
that McLaren did not answer the question (a very simple and easy
question). Any number of answers would at least be decent: Jesus, the
Gospel, God’s love for mankind, truth, his family, his enemies… Is
there nothing worth dying for?

Jesus
said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his
life for his friends.” There’s something worth dying for, that’s
Biblical, that resonates with McLaren’s emphasis on signs of love of
God. Too bad he didn’t offer that. But since he’s concerned about love,
how about Jesus’ conversation with Peter? “Simon, son of John, do you
love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said
to him, ‘Feed my sheep.” So a good sign of love for God is feeding His
sheep. What is Brian McLaren feeding the sheep? Apparently nothing
worth dying for.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 6 Comments »

The Wedge

June 22, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

In the article I quoted yesterday, the author refers to “The Wedge Document” (see a summary here), a document drafted by the Discovery Institute to explain its long-term strategy for debunking materialism (the idea that the physical world is all that exists). The document opens with this paragraph:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

The document then goes on to detail the corrosive effects that materialism (specifically, the ideas of Darwin, Marx, and Freud) has had on our society, concluding with the worst:

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Ideas have consequences. False ideas have bad consequences. The idea that God does not exist has the worst consequences of all. Atheism has killed over 100 million people. There is simply no ground for human rights if God does not exist. There is nothing to check the power of a government if the government considers itself the supreme power. And without a standard of right and wrong, the only thing determining right and wrong is power–whoever has the power is right.

But I’m not just advocating intelligent design because I think it will make a better society–I think it is true and materialism is false. Considering the consequences, if materialism is false, we cannot stand by and let it grow unchallenged. There’s just too much at stake here.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Science 11 Comments »

Specified Complexity–Neither of Chance Nor of Necessity

June 21, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

A friend just sent me an article from the May 30, 2005 issue of The New Yorker titled “Devolution: Why intelligent design isn’t.“ Despite the fact that the author, H. Allen Orr, calls intelligent design “junk science” and claims that the hype over the movement (and William Dembski’s work in particular) only exists “because an innumerate public is easily impressed by a bit of mathematics,” he actually gives a decent, quick summary of specified complexity as an argument for intelligent design . He says:

According to Dembski, a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity. The novel “Moby Dick,” for example, didn’t arise by chance (Melville didn’t scribble random letters), and it wasn’t the necessary consequence of a physical law (unlike, say, the fall of an apple). It was, instead, the result of Melville’s intelligence. Dembski argues that there is a reliable way to recognize such products of intelligence in the natural world. We can conclude that an object was intelligently designed, he says, if it shows “specified complexity”–complexity that matches an “independently given pattern.” The sequence of letters “JKXVCJUDOPLVM” is certainly complex: if you randomly type thirteen letters, you are very unlikely to arrive at this particular sequence. But it isn’t specified it doesn’t match any independently given sequence of letters. If, on the other hand, I ask you for the first sentence of “Moby Dick” and you type the letters “CALLMEISHMAEL,” you have produced something that is both complex and specified. The sequence you typed is unlikely to arise by chance alone, and it matches an independent target sequence (the one written by Melville). Dembski argues that specified complexity, when expressed mathematically, provides an unmistakable signature of intelligence. Things like “CALLMEISHMAEL,” he points out, just don’t arise in the real world without acts of intelligence.

The words of Melville’s novel, like the DNA in the cells of our body:

Did not (and could not) come together randomly by chance.
Did not come together out of necessity (i.e., the physical laws of the universe did not determine their arrangement).
The pattern that emerged is complex (i.e., it is not a simple pattern like ABABAB).
The pattern that did come together communicates meaningful information.
In our experience of the world, specified complexity occurs only as a result of the work of an intelligent agent, so we can reasonably conclude that this case (DNA and all of life) is no different.

Take a look at this article and the brief arguments the author offers against the claims of Dembski and others. Even though Orr is clearly against the I.D. movement, this is the first time I’ve seen the press explain and address the actual arguments, and that’s a step in the right direction.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Science 17 Comments »

Interview with Mary Kassian – Part II

July 1, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Interview with Mary Kassian – Part I

June 30, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton