Saturday, April 28, 2012

Women in Theological Battle

1 Peter 3:7 reads, "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

What does God mean by calling the wife "weaker"?  In what way? Physically?  See Strong's #G772 ἀσθενής and you can see the word has been used to indicate weak and sick among other less common uses.  Obviously, we don't see women as "sick".  In fact, in no way does it indicate women are inferior to men.  However, there is need to generally protect them.  Even in the United States, quickly becoming one of the most liberal nations on earth, we protect our women in not letting them on the front lines of a battlefield.  Battle does something to a person.  It hardens them.  Makes them more cynical perhaps.  It doesn't necessarily turn them into a bad person but because they need a strong resolve, they are less likely to engage in petty talk or activities.

The same is true for theological battlefields. No one is saying women shouldn't discuss scripture or be active in theological study but theological battles often get messy.  Women, by design and nature are often more emotive than men, generally speaking.  For example, a wife of Moses named Zipporah was reluctant to let Moses carry out God's command to circumcise one of his children.  When God threatened to kill Moses, Zipporah relented but she was upset and called Moses a "husband of blood" (see Exodus 4:24-26).  Zipporah couldn't handle the strong reality of the situation and acted emotionally -- which is not necessarily wrong since this is how God designed women.  However, highly charged emotionalism is often a clouded way to approach a situation that requires steely resolve.

In the battle against Hyperpreterism, I have had to balance between interacting with women in and outside of the movement.  It is always difficult because for the most part, it is a no win situation.  For if you are too harsh toward a woman, you will be seen as a brute and if you are too soft, you will be seen as a compromiser.  I have found the best policy (though I admit I don't always follow it) is to allow older, more mature women to teach younger emotive women.  Don't get me wrong, I've seen some men that act on emotionalism more than most women.

Well, recently a hyperpreterist woman named Robin; who is known for her emotive potshots, started this tactic with me on a forum.  She even commented in a snit on a posting of mine that was merely pointing out the names and definitions of argumentation and fallacies.  Most of the material came from a book I read.

Robin also has a reputation of being feminist and resentful toward men. I have tried to simply answer her with "Thanks for your comments Robin", because any further and you'll invite her typical ploy; which it to get a man to engage her and then play the victim when he wields his theological axe too strongly.

After enduring several of Robin's snotty potshots and being unable to correct her falsehoods because the moderator threatened me if I did, I sent Robin a private email.  It is as follows:

So, you don't like it when people patronize you for your gender and how
you appeal to emotionalism and pity yet here you are letting Ed come
treat you like you can't handle yourself. THIS is the reason I don't
interact with a woman like you Robin. It is a no win situation. If I'm
too blunt, I'm viewed as a meanie. If I'm too soft, I'm viewed
as...well...soft. You are like the feminist who yells for equality and
yet expects a man to hold the door open for you. What a little
hypocrite. Sheesh.

As you can see, although it is direct, it is hardly rude or even hateful.  I never called her nonsensical names like "turd", or "bonehead" such as we often get from men like Sam Frost.  I was simply telling her why I will not interact with her.  She was not "standing up to me", because I didn't start anything with her.  She was pot-shotting on postings that didn't even address her.

After I sent this email, two other women -- these are supposed to be Christian women within orthodoxy; Dee Dee Warren (whom I've documented on this site as being a sellout) and Sharon Nichols who while she may personally be a nice person, she is a sycophant.  Anyhow, these two women started  egging poor Robin on -- because they will use anyone to get at big, bad meanie Roderick.  So, in a comment to yet another woman, a "hyperpreterist" named Dorothy whom I've always known to conduct herself with less emotionalism and more rationalism; I wrote:

"Although, while you are a confident and "strong" woman, much like my own dear wife; you have never been, to say nicely since in not so polite circles the word would begin with a "B". Let's say it this way. You were always gentle and respectful and not mouthy. Your arguments contained rationalism more than emotionalism. So, while you and I could and did often hotly disagree, I never felt like you were being...well you know .
So, what does this have to do with what you've written below? I think Dee Dee and Sharon are simply doing what my daughter experienced in school....behaving like girls do. "You'd better join my little cliche over here or I'll give you that evil look"...again a form of Sam Frost's favorite fallacy: Social Conformance, but with a female twist.
If you didn't already know this're a woman. A female. Many females in theological discussions resent males. They resent males unless those males pander to them or let their jabs slide. Most of the time it is a no win situation for a male to interact theologically with a woman. If the male is too blunt, he'll seem to be a brute. If he is too soft, he'll seem as a compromiser." --
As you can see, I no where mention Robin in this posting.  I was simply acknowledging the distinct difference in Dorothy's conduct; especially as Dorothy herself was taking quite a beating from Dee Dee and Sharon.  While I no where said the actual B-word, these women and their agenda-driven male friends have tried to make a big deal out of this.  First off, I didn't have the B-word in mind.  I wasn't calling them "bitches".  If anything they might be described as being "bitchY" -- however, anyone who has read my writings knows I typically don't use profanity.  But the hypocrisy in all this is Sam Frost who was right there trying to turn this into a crisis, has literally told me at least twice to "F*ck-off", and this is while he claimed to be a pastor.  He and his friends have also said that I have a "homosexual obsession" with them -- all this because I oppose them. Yet where was the outrage for this????  See, the difference is just like it is in liberal circles.  Since liberals have no morals, it is no big deal when the say and do things like this, but when a person who attempts to have integrity does anything that can be SPUN to look like a failing; oh the liberals are all over it.  In the same way, Dee Dee, Sharon and Sam Frost are doing all they can to turn this into something awful.

I don't apologize for what I said because it is the demonstrative truth; after all people CAN BE "bitchy" -- even I have been "bitchy" in my life at times.  It is simply a reality.  But when a person becomes defined by that trait, then it becomes something else.

Here's the deal Robin.  I don't really believe women should be on battlefields -- not because I am a chauvinist pig or a "misogynist" (since I CLEARLY don't hate women as attested to by my 22 year marriage to a very strong and confident woman and my raising of a daughter equally strong and confident) -- but because I want to protect women.  This is the kind of thing that happens to women when they enter into battle.  They either are seen as hardened or they actually become hardened; and often for women it comes off as them being....well..."bitchy".   Take the example of women in politics; it is difficult for a woman to present herself as strong yet not "bitchy". (Think Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama compared to Margret Thatcher)

Now, as I conclude, I don't want women to think I think this of all women.  There are some, wise, mature women who can pull it off.  This is what I was trying to say to Dorothy and I believe she took it in that spirit; as I have said it to her in the past.

There is nothing I can do to appease the agenda-drive minds of people like Dee Dee Warren and Sharon or even Robin.  I will seek to stick more to the policy of simply "thank you for your comment" and move on.  Again, this will come off as I said to Robin as "patronizing" her; but unless she can show she can conduct herself more like Dorothy (whom I disagree with theologically yet don't have these "bitchy" back-and-forth tirades with), then I will avoid direct discussion with women like Robin.

Lastly, Robin -- you may very well be an honorable woman.  Though I have strongly disagreed with your hyperpreterism and your feminist approach to discussions; I've never known you to be like Dee Dee and Sam Frost; liars and hypocrites.  I'd be more than happy to engage you in discussions in the future if you leave all the emotive baggage at the door.  Thanks

No comments: