Why don't they ever complain about this?

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups - the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders... These are their stories.

These are the opening words countless numbers of us hear on a regular basis when we watch Law and Order. Go slowly, read them again. You know the funny thing is, I've never once heard an Egalitarian/Religious Feminist complain about this, but when it comes to Sexual Orthodoxy . . .

Kamilla

Rusell Moore on Liberation Theology

There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barrabas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-06-016-v


Dr. Moore is rapidly becoming my favorite patriarchalist within CBMW-style circles. He's already gone on record as preferring the label patriarchlist to complementarian (for which he gets LOTS of points):

http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070501/d2de20cd-e931-4593-9ba8-71907cc50ce0.aspx

and he also gave the excellent talk, "After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are winning the Evangelical theology debate" at ETS a couple of years ago:


http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

And, in the Touchstone article quoted and linked above, he skewers televangelists from both ends of the political spectrum. Enjoy the links!

Kamilla

Some of them are quite nice, actually . . .

I'm at work tonight and I went down to the cafeteria for a Dr. Pepper and a piece of pizza for dinner. There was a doc in line paying, and he apologized for jumping ahead of me - I wasn't paying enough attention to know whether he had or not. In the end, he bought my dinner. I tried to give the money back, but he took it and handed it to the checker who took it, over my protests.

A nice little bonus on the day we re-arrange for the next phase of our lab remodel!

Kamilla

Speak for yourself, Mrs. Obama

I caught a short clip of "The View" the other day in which Mrs. Barack Obama said, "Yes, there's always a level (of sexism). People are not used to strong women,"


As I said, speak for yourself, Michelle. Many of us happen to DEARLY LOVE strong women. I, for one, wish one of the strongest women to ever walk this earth was still here. I wish she was here to confront your husband with words similar to those she addressed to the last Democrat to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when she spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994:

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Now THAT is a strong woman.

Compare and Contrast

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080619.wcurfew19/BNStory/lifeFamily/home#



Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

- State Senator Barack Obama, speaking on the floor of the Illinois Senate on March 30, 2001 - the sole speaker in opposition to Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act.



First, a few points to make. What Obama terms a "fetus" is an infant child who has survived the attempt on his life, by any one of several methods falling under the umbrella term, "late term abortion". The bill would not have outlawed these abortions, it merely required that, when an infant survives the procedure, he be given comfort until he dies, rather than shoved, out of sight and perhaps out of mind, on a shelve in a soiled utility closet. This is the man who is running for President with the nod of the Democrats. And make no mistake - he is a merchant of the Culture of Death.

The link above that quote is to a Canadian story in which a father was successfully sued by his 12-year-old daughter for excessive punishment. His crime? He refused permission for her to attend a school field trip after she had disobeyed and put pictures of herself on an Internet dating site.

12 YEARS OLD!

I know this is a Canadian story, but if you think this sort of thing is far behind - now, what was that little to-do in Texas with the FLDS all about?

This sort of dissonance never ceases to amaze and sicken me. On the one hand, we have a presidential candidate who thinks it is OK to murder infants fully born simply because the first attempt on their lives wasn't successful. On the other hand, we have a father found guilty of excessive punishment for trying to protect his daughter from herself. Now, if she hadn't been twelve, is she had only been two months prior to birth, her father still wouldn't have had any say in the matter, but her mother could have taken a little trip south of the border and disposed of the little punishment before she ever got a chance to put her pictures up for all the pedophiles in the world to see.

YIKES! It gets scarier and scarier, doesn't it?

The Truth is Out There

I'll admit two things right up front that could be embarrassing. I read the "PEOPLE" celebrity quotes of the week just now. And, I'm an X-phile. There, now I feel better.

I've long had a theory that UFO's are, indeed, real - it's just that people are so very wrong about what they really are. Bible prophecy speaker, Chuck Missler says that they are the return of the Nephilim. I think that is likely very close to the correct explanation. Considering that these beings change shape and tactics according to the times and the culture (succubi, anyone?), I think some sort of spiritual deception/demonic involvement has to be part of the explanation. Vivid dreams and sleep paralysis also go along way towards de-bunking the abduction stories. However, one little matter had never occurred to me. If these things are really beings from somewhere out there, why are they so selective in their appearances?

And don't forget, the X-files movie comes out July 15.




"I don't think aliens or ghosts like black people. We never get abducted; our houses never get haunted. It always happens in rural areas, where no ethnic people live. The day I see somebody from South Central Los Angeles say, 'Man, I got abducted yesterday,' then I'll believe it." – Rapper Xzibit, who is costarring opposite David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Amanda Peet in the upcoming movie The X-Files: I Want to Believe

When is a house not a home?

I caught this "news" item today:

http://www.yahoo.com/s/903457

Does anyone seriously believe this show piece was ever a "home"?

Some days you just shake your head in amazement . . .

Hangin's too good for him:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25211398/

Well, I've never heard of trying that one before:

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/KMSB_20080617_jh_smuggle.131f89c1.html


I'm sorry, but just calling it that doesn't make it true (or, as I prefer, ICK!):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_en_ce/people_george_takei

I should be so lucky:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/16/national/a090143D22.DTL

I TOLD you they were real:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-AP-unicorn-photo.html

To whom does the Bride belong?

Paul's NT letters provide us with a beautiful picture of marriage. It is hard to imagine the mindset that finds it necessary to atomize husbandly headship and wifely submission in a way that removes all the beauty from these passages, Ephesians in particular, obliterating all references to our Saviour's authority. Some religious feminists have seen the implications for their view of mutual submission and are proclaiming that Christ submits to the church!

I've been pondering that, and the point in a wedding ceremony where the bride is given by father to husband. This is at the heart of marriage and the picture of Christ and His Church - to whom do we belong? Do we belong to our Bridegroom, who seeks to present us holy and blameless? Or do we retain ownershp of ourselves, obliterating the picture of marriage and leaving ourselves open and vulnerable.

For, make no mistake, we always belong to someone.

Ephesians 5:21-33, ESV:


21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I'm glad he did!

Recently, Tim Bayly recommended the blog of Doug Wilson:

http://www.dougwils.com

Today, Doug posted this wedding sermon:

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5496

Beautiful, isn't it? And yet this is the very picture religious reminists deny - they deny the possibility of equality within hierarchy, in doing so they deny the very nature of our triune God.

Kamilla

P.S. I'm so very glad Tim made this recommendation.

The Gnosis of the Interpreta Immaculata

Over on her blog, a prominent religious feminist writer begins a post in this manner:

First of all, let it be clear that biblical equality is not grounded in feminism. I am persuaded of all believers’ equal authority in Christ, not because I have adopted the feminism of secular culture, but because I am persuaded by the biblical data that Scripture upholds the freedom and authority of both men and women in Christ. While feminist ideology is derived from cultural factors and philosophies, biblical equality is grounded simply and solely in the properly consistent interpretation of God’s Word.

Now, we readily admit of the possibility of coming to the view of "biblical equality" in an immaculate fashion. However, such protestations of innocence would be more convincing if this writer's readership were not so busy letting their slip show elsewhere:

I have heard it commented more than once that it's sad that the Christian Church in general is so slow to accept something general society accepted years ago-- that a woman is fully as capable as a man. . . .What do you all think? Are there other reasons why Christians as a group tend to be "backwards," to the world's way of thinking, regarding women? Can anything be done about it?

The discussion resulting from this post has lasted several days with not one correspondent noting that, "biblical equality is grounded simply and solely in the properly consistent interpretation of God's word" and is not an attempt to catch up to "the world's way of thinking" - and yet this discussion consists of several responses and has been, according to the site's own statistics, viewed more than 70 times.

Hmmm,

Kamilla

Where do I begin? . . .

The Cold Feet of Bachelors

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2008/06/bachelors-were.html#comments


Kamilla

Addendum:

The discussion over at MC has been interesting, to say the least. However, I always find such topics frustrating because the men and women seem to have such different views of each other and why they may have been rejected or otherwise unsuccessful. I am tempted to just tell the men (young and not-so-young) to "man up". Did you give up driving the first time you failed? Did you give up anything worth doing the when it didn't work out as planned?

You see, there's only so much we gals can legitimately do to attract your attention or encourage your pursuit. That is, if we want a marriage worth the name and not some vanilla-flavored equal-partnership pseudo-marriage thingy.