A
Well I did listen to the video and read statements attributed to her online and if those statements are true then, they are the basis for my assertions Amber. It has nothing to do with her makeup.
Rather, she makes all the classic liberal feminist mistakes (e.g. deconstruction of the truth in order to serve her own interests, reinvention of the meta-narrative, the demise of the text, the dominion of therapy, the decline of authority, the displacement of morality, etc..). Her entire approach to interpretation begins less with the biblical text and more with the concerns of feminism as a worldview. You may want to read my other posts in this thread and think about all that I've said.
Furthermore, biblical imagery is imagery. I see that she confuses this quite a bit in her "theology" and this has produced some interesting heretical statements.
Feminists have long understood the power of naming and renaming in order to reimagine our world in keeping with their notion of gender equality. But what is considerably more troubling than the tendentious, manipulative use of language by those pursuing these sociopolitical agendas is the fact that the very notion of truth has largely become a casualty of their postmodern thought and discourse.
Truth is no longer “the” truth, in Jesus’ terms who claimed to be “the truth” (John 14:6). Rather, feminists conceive it as "feminist truth"... another different but legitimate way of perceiving reality. Hence truth is simply their preferred, culturally conditioned, socially constructed reinvented version of reality rather than the "true truth" as Francis Schaeffer called truth.
Schaeffer understand that Christians were to emphatically affirm the possibility and reality of truth by claiming to know “true truth,” not merely subjective, relative “truth” that can be reinvented to fit modern, post-modern, and radical sociopolitical agendas.
We do not believe that the Christian gospel is a socially constructed truth that can be reinvented to accomplish the political agenda of feminists, homosexuals, etc... but rather it is objectively, historically, and universally true and true in the manner in which it was given sans-reinvention.
As Schaeffer lamented, for modern man, “truth as truth is gone, and . . . relativism reigns.” Schaeffer understood that once truth is torn down in our institutions of higher learning, it is only a matter of time before this will trickle down into our everyday lives: exactly what we see happening in this video you posted.
This idea (e.g. deconstructionism) that every text must be deconstructed because every text contains a subtext of oppressive intentions on the part of the author in the name of liberation subjects the Bible to radical reinterpretation, often with little or no regard for the plain meaning of the text or the clear intention of the human author who is asserted to be suppressive, patriarchal, heterosexist, homophobic, “speciesist,” morally blighted, etc... deformed by ideological bias resulting in the fanciful and even ridiculous interpretations which are then celebrated as affirming and therefore authentic.
It's nonsense for the Bible is not merely the words of people, it IS the Word of God.
Postmodernism’s insistence on the blightedness of the author is inherently fallacious and antisupernaturalistic as applied to God's Word.
What I'm seeing is a lot of counterfeit subversive reinvention of God's revealed truth by groups engaging in the behavior to further their sociopolitical agendas .
One of the reasons why I keep repeating this statement from "The New Book of Theology" on the restoration of covenant mutuality in Christ http://christianchat.com/christian-family-forum/79897-dangers-feminism-16.html#post1437328 is because it highlights how widely liberal feminists miss the mark.
It is true that the entire biblical message, including that about women, revolves not around patriarchalism or egalitarianism but around God’s covenant and His redemptive dealings with humanity and the creation. The closest thing to a biblical definition of who we are, man or woman, is our creation as ‘image of God’ (Gn. 1:27). This ‘definition’ revolves around our common calling, in unity with one another and the creation, to serve God in obligation to him and to one another.
However, this calling is beyond both feminism and patriarchalism, to life in covenant; and in that covenant gender roles are clearly defined.
Understand, those biblically defined gender roles are NOT what liberal feminists are asserting.
And just for clarity, the account of Barak (plus Deborah and Jael) in the book of Judges records the careers of twelve judges in all: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Barak, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon and Samson.
Deborah and Jael both play very significant roles in the Barak episode, and Deborah is even said to have ‘led’ (lit. ‘judged’) Israel (4:4–5), but in terms of the overall design of the book, her ministry must be seen as essentially an account of Barak’s career.
Peace
.
Rather, she makes all the classic liberal feminist mistakes (e.g. deconstruction of the truth in order to serve her own interests, reinvention of the meta-narrative, the demise of the text, the dominion of therapy, the decline of authority, the displacement of morality, etc..). Her entire approach to interpretation begins less with the biblical text and more with the concerns of feminism as a worldview. You may want to read my other posts in this thread and think about all that I've said.
Furthermore, biblical imagery is imagery. I see that she confuses this quite a bit in her "theology" and this has produced some interesting heretical statements.
Feminists have long understood the power of naming and renaming in order to reimagine our world in keeping with their notion of gender equality. But what is considerably more troubling than the tendentious, manipulative use of language by those pursuing these sociopolitical agendas is the fact that the very notion of truth has largely become a casualty of their postmodern thought and discourse.
Truth is no longer “the” truth, in Jesus’ terms who claimed to be “the truth” (John 14:6). Rather, feminists conceive it as "feminist truth"... another different but legitimate way of perceiving reality. Hence truth is simply their preferred, culturally conditioned, socially constructed reinvented version of reality rather than the "true truth" as Francis Schaeffer called truth.
Schaeffer understand that Christians were to emphatically affirm the possibility and reality of truth by claiming to know “true truth,” not merely subjective, relative “truth” that can be reinvented to fit modern, post-modern, and radical sociopolitical agendas.
We do not believe that the Christian gospel is a socially constructed truth that can be reinvented to accomplish the political agenda of feminists, homosexuals, etc... but rather it is objectively, historically, and universally true and true in the manner in which it was given sans-reinvention.
As Schaeffer lamented, for modern man, “truth as truth is gone, and . . . relativism reigns.” Schaeffer understood that once truth is torn down in our institutions of higher learning, it is only a matter of time before this will trickle down into our everyday lives: exactly what we see happening in this video you posted.
This idea (e.g. deconstructionism) that every text must be deconstructed because every text contains a subtext of oppressive intentions on the part of the author in the name of liberation subjects the Bible to radical reinterpretation, often with little or no regard for the plain meaning of the text or the clear intention of the human author who is asserted to be suppressive, patriarchal, heterosexist, homophobic, “speciesist,” morally blighted, etc... deformed by ideological bias resulting in the fanciful and even ridiculous interpretations which are then celebrated as affirming and therefore authentic.
It's nonsense for the Bible is not merely the words of people, it IS the Word of God.
Postmodernism’s insistence on the blightedness of the author is inherently fallacious and antisupernaturalistic as applied to God's Word.
What I'm seeing is a lot of counterfeit subversive reinvention of God's revealed truth by groups engaging in the behavior to further their sociopolitical agendas .
One of the reasons why I keep repeating this statement from "The New Book of Theology" on the restoration of covenant mutuality in Christ http://christianchat.com/christian-family-forum/79897-dangers-feminism-16.html#post1437328 is because it highlights how widely liberal feminists miss the mark.
It is true that the entire biblical message, including that about women, revolves not around patriarchalism or egalitarianism but around God’s covenant and His redemptive dealings with humanity and the creation. The closest thing to a biblical definition of who we are, man or woman, is our creation as ‘image of God’ (Gn. 1:27). This ‘definition’ revolves around our common calling, in unity with one another and the creation, to serve God in obligation to him and to one another.
However, this calling is beyond both feminism and patriarchalism, to life in covenant; and in that covenant gender roles are clearly defined.
Understand, those biblically defined gender roles are NOT what liberal feminists are asserting.
And just for clarity, the account of Barak (plus Deborah and Jael) in the book of Judges records the careers of twelve judges in all: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Barak, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon and Samson.
Deborah and Jael both play very significant roles in the Barak episode, and Deborah is even said to have ‘led’ (lit. ‘judged’) Israel (4:4–5), but in terms of the overall design of the book, her ministry must be seen as essentially an account of Barak’s career.
Peace
.
