ROOLZ O' DA BLOG--Ya break 'em, ya git shot.
1. No cowards. State your first and last name. "Anonymous" aint your name.
2. No wimps.
3. No cussin'.
4. State no argument without reference to a biblical passage or passages and show a strong logical connection between your statement and the passages you cite.
5. Insults, sarcasm, name-calling, irony, derision, and humor at the expense of others aren't allowed unless they are biblical or logical, in which case they are WILDLY ENCOURAGED.
6. No aphronism.
7. Fear God, not man.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007


Claire Powell: Jesus or Jessica?

This will wrap up my critique of Claire Powell’s three page article on pages 89-91. I have already wasted a lot of ink on it. And much more could be pointed out in the way of interpretational hijinks and downright dishonesty. So we are only going to look at four more problems as representative samples.

First, in her introduction on page 89, we learn that men are stupid. She writes, “A change of perspective on the Bible was also needed, not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men, or that all women think the same way, but because, until recently, almost all biblical interpretation has been by men.”

Yep, that’s right. Men have been doing all the interpretation and that's bad. I have to assume we have gotten things wrong somehow. Huuummmm.

Oh, but wait! In that same quote you will find two curiously anomalous statements. One says, “...not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men...” And the other says, “A change of perspective on the Bible was...needed...because...almost all biblical interpretation has been by men.” This is the conundrum of feminist bigotry. They want to say that men and women are essentially identical at the same time they say women are better than we beastly males are.

Second, on page 90, second column, we read, “Junia...was an apostle (Romans 16:7).” Actually, Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” So either “apostle” was used in an wider sense or Andronicus and Junias were held in high esteem by the twelve. In any case, Junias was not one of the twelve.

Third, Powell goes on a rant about how we must not see God as male. On page 91 we read, “Many people hold a mental image of God as male or at least somehow more male than female.” Yes, Claire, and so did I....until I was six!

But it gets better. When she delves deeply into Greek and Hebrew grammar all three wheels come off. “In languages which do not have an inclusive pronoun, either masculine or feminine must be used to reflect the fact that God’s nature is personal, not impersonal. It has nothing to do with sex (that which is biologically determined) or gender (that which is socially determined.)” (The parentheses were hers, not mine.)

Did you catch that? Sex is biologically determined. (Thanks, Claire, for clearing that up for us.) But gender is socially determined. Hummm. And all this time I thought sex determined gender. One is scared to think just where Powell is going with this line of thinking. If gender is not afixed to biological sex, then the way is open for all kinds of filth, such as that espoused by the EC (Evangleicals Concerned) which says this about itself: “Evangelicals Concerned (EC) is a nationwide ministry which encourages and affirms lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians in their faith.” Is it my imagination or is Powell nudging us down a lavender path?

As she continues down the road to grammatical perversion, we read in the middle column of page 91 that “...the feminine terms for God, e.g. the Holy Spirit and wisdom in the Old Testament...have been rediscovered.” I find two things here that are interesting. First, the idea that the Holy Spirit has been lost for some time is news to me. But then, I never accidentally had the book of Proverbs (or any of the other wisdom books) fall out of my Bible, either. Second, while she discounts the masculine pronoun as any sort of indicator about God’s character, she invoked the grammatical feminine as a determining factor in our picture of God the Holy Spirit. Is this a double standard?

In the biblical position, God is seen as masculine at times and feminine at times, never male or female, since He has no body. Masculine and feminine indicate manner, role, and character. And since God is Ruler, King, Judge, Yahweh of Armies, Husband of His people, Father, etc., the biblical view is almost exclusively masculine. This is so simple the church has always held to this view and I understood it when I was knee-high. Yet, the feminists and homosexuals amoung us don't get it. Why?

More important, why is Zondervan pushing their gender agenda on us?

Fourth, and last, Powell claims it is only happenstance that the Messiah came as a man and not a women. God flipped a cosmic coin and it came up tails, so He sent Jesus, not Jessica. Poor Jessica. This is found on page 91, second and third columns. The logic is tortured--unworthy of an academic setting with any pretense to objective research and learning. In Powell's creative history, since it was Jesus and not Jessica, women have been ignored as possible clergy. Again, she denies God's created order. Man is the head because of God's decree, not a messianic gender accident.

Further, it ignores the plain teaching of Romans 5. There we read of righteousness coming from a Man and sin coming from a man. Verse 19 says, "For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." So then, sin and death came by a man, and life and righteousness came by a Man. The masculinity of the Messiah was neither accidental nor incidental.

We weren't made sinners by Eve. We aren't made righteous by Jessica. And I won't buy anything from Zondervan.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. There Shawn. Happy now?


Anonymous said...

Sir, with all due respect, you are not going to convince anyone of anything unless it is done in love. The tone of both this article and your comments left on Challies sight is very sarcastic, self-righteous, and almost impossible to read without feeling talked down to. I agree in principle with what you say, however, I would caution you to be careful how it is that you say it. Please consider if all the cynical remarks directed at those who will most likely never read the article are truly done "In Christ" before you sign off with that. If they are not done in love you may as well just videotape yourself smashing cymbals together and post that.

Phil Perkins said...

Dear Anon,
If you "agree in principle" with me, how can you be so sure no one else can be convinced?

And how do you know what I said was not said in love? Are you judging your brother without evidence?

And how do you explain the sharp words of our Lord? After all He is the One who call anyone who misrepresents what God has said a liar. Can you point to where I exceeded that level of directness? For instance, did I call them saaayy...du du heads? Or dork faces? No. I only called them liars, as did God.

Have you called God to object since He Himself first called such people liars?

And have you called Zondervan to scold them for lying to us as you have contacted me to whine that I am too adamant in defense of the truth?

No, you haven't. And here's why: You don't care as much for God's truth as you do for a legalistic religion that hates those too in love with God and His Truth.

I'll make a challenge to you. What is a biblical definition of love. You may wish to read this article to find the answer:


Charles Spurgeon said, "We do not in any degree apologize because the shock,
like that of a cold bath early in the morning, will do the
people good, and strengthen their constitutions. We can
assure them that they cannot be one-half so much as
shocked by our ridicule of error
as we are by the error itself.
We do not make the evil, we only expose it;
and if we use words and symbols which strike and stick,
and even offend, we believe that they are necessary,
and ought to be used far more frequently.

We are not going to handle the abominations
of the present American establishment with kid gloves;
and if we judge sarcasm and ridicule to be deserved,
we shall give the Lord’s enemies their full quota of scorn."

Excerpt from The Sword and the Trowel, Vol 2'Rough Words for Great Evils'

Finally, can you name the prophet or apostle that didn't show the anger of God when dealing with false teachers and false prophets? Have you called God and asked Him to tone dowm Paul's letters because he seems to have been way too mean to the false circumcision? Oh, that's right. You could call Zondervan to do that in the TNIV 2nd edition, huh.
They're good at editing the Bible.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.