Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Headline reads that the swimmer that swam from Florida to Cuba vomited constantly. So do some with gallbladder disease, but you don't see them getting a media pity party. No one forced her to swim there. Is not like she was fleeing Castro's dictatorship. And why was she allowed to do this when the average American cannot travel to that island via more modernized modes of transportation?
A New Republic cover story points out that the public school system has failed non-conformist children. Does that mean students bored out of their wits because they possess a greater intellectual acuity than what the pedagogy is aimed at? Or is this code for urchins that need a swift smack on the backside because they aren’t going to listen to anyone telling them to sit still?
Bishop Admits Hispanics At Least As Debauched If Not More So Than Everybody Else
Monday, September 02, 2013
Best To Avoid Syria Entanglement
However, beyond a stern verbal condemnation, is it all that wise for the United States to get involved at this point?
Do we really know for certain who is the responsible party?
This conflict is not Star Wars or Lord of The Rings with clearly discernible protagonists and adversaries.
Either side could be capable of doing such a thing.
On the one hand, you have a brutal dictatorship. On the other side, the so-called “freedom fighters” have been accused of cannibalism and granting of a religious dispensation allowing for the raping of women caught up in the conflict.
Most importantly, if the Obama Administration decides to get involved militarily, does the President have the resolve to do what must be done?
For example, what if a campaign to eliminate Syrian weapons of mass destruction is conducted half-heartedly in the manner in which the President undertakes so many of his policy initiatives and America returns home before the task is completed?
Since whoever is responsible has no qualms about about killing their own people systematically and in the most horrible manners imaginable, what would prevent them from doing so to the people of the United States?
The border is pretty much a siv and, if Assad is indeed responsible as Obama is insisting to the civilized world, the President has already announced his intentions to allow that particular Middle Eastern tyrant to remain in power where the ensconced despot can plot revenge at leisure.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Did Toys R Us Spill The Beans That Dinobots Will Be Featured In Transformers 4?
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Spurgeon remarked that those content to be a newspaper editor, a grocer, a doctor or a king rather than become a minister did not possess the fullness of the spirit of God. But doesn't God need solid Christians in these trades and professions as well? Isn't one edging away from the oasis of sound doctrine towards the wastelands of gnosticism by downplaying the needs each of these divisions of labor specialize in addressing? The preacher is going to do you little good if you don't have the physical strength to listen to his message (these needs being met by the grocer and the doctor) and you aren't going to know whether or not it's safe to go to church without the magistrate to keep the bandits at bay and the media to expose when the government has itself become the bandit.
Martin Luther King. Jr. was not the flawless individual he is made out to be by certain segments of the American population. A number of his associations, life choices, and professed beliefs were at times highly questionable. However, to graft together the countenances of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Trayvon Martin into a single image plastered on a t-shirt as if they are of equal stature is a step too far. In his brief 39 years, Martin Luther King earned a Bachelor of Art in Sociology, a Bachelor of Divinity, and a PhD in Systematic Theology while also pastoring a church and composing numerous rhetorical works. Though academic achievement is not necessarily a determining measure of individual character, Trayvon Martin wasn’t even able to keep his nose clean enough to prevent from being kicked out of high school.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Police assure that the beating death of 88 year old Delbert Bolton had nothing whatsoever to do with race. And this makes Delbert Bolton any less dead how? To justify the lavish salaries and expense accounts of consultant diversitymongers, it is constantly pounded into our heads about institutional racism. This is the perceptual malady where we could be holding to prejudiced and biased assumptions and not even realize it. I guess these scumbags singled out an elderly white man thinking he would be able to put up a fair fight. Maybe they had such respect for the elderly that they could not bear the thought of the targeted individual enduring the deprivations of the Obama healthcare plan to be inflicted upon the chronologically advanced in the years to come. So the duo must have decided to bestow the gift and blessing of an unsolicited mercy killing.
Southern Baptist Seminarian Overreacts To The Rise Of Alternative Information Delivery Systems
Given that Mohler's program is primarily available through this particular medium, it is ironic that he would raise this complaint.
Should the discerning Christian cut back on this renowned seminarian's program if it is not so much quality of the screen time we are to be concerned with rather than quality?
As part of his argument, Mohler quotes from theologian Jacques Ellul who argued that, once a technology enters our lives, it begins to take them over.
Would Dr. Mohler have made such a complaint about the printing press and the revolution in information made available by the proliferation of economically approved.
Back then, it was also argued that works disseminated in that fashion would undermine authorities and put knowledge in the hands of those not deemed qualified to handle it.
But most importantly, without the printed word, would the Protestantism (of which Albert Mohler is one of the movement's most prominent contemporary spokesmen and thinkers) have blossomed into a viable expression of the Christian tradition?
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Crazed Fundamentalist Threatens To Dump Missionaries Embracing Cultic Legalism
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Luthernans & Catholics Contemplate The Reformation's Pending 500th Anniversary
National Cathedral Dean An Atheist
As justification, the clergyman claims Jesus referenced his father but that this does not necessarily mean God.
Then who exactly is the father of Jesus?
Was it the blond-haired, blue-eyed Germanic Roman solider stationed in Palestine as conjectured by one of the translators of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible?
Is the baby-daddy of the Christ Child one of the saucer men as hypothesized by the Chariot of The Gods theory?
The Bible doesn't speak much in favor of gay marriage and says even less about gun control.
However, that certainly hasn't prevented Dean Hall from often commenting enthusiastically on behalf of these causes trendy among leftists.
One of the most profound questions anyone will ever answer was originally raised by Jesus and directed towards His Disciples when He asked who did they say that He was.
If one responds with anything but the Son of God and second person of the Trinity yet has made Christian ministry one's occupational vocation, the only purpose for having done so is to drag as many as possible along with you into the pits of Hell.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
Conservative Baptists & Liberal Presbyterians Slug It Out Over The Wrath Of God
Are The Chronicles Of Narnia A Gateway To Paganism?
For the record, I do not think they are.
Another question to ask, is if so bad, why don't Fundamentalists attempt providing a speculative narrative alternative.
Click On The Headline
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Undressing Assumptions In A Church Clothing Debate
For example, it is probably best for those holding elected, ecclesiastical, or professional office to adorn themselves worthy of the part as they execute their duties.
However, it does not follow that the remainder of us should be similarly miserable if we are not enjoying the same degree of prestige, payment or opportunity.
Relatedly, sometimes those latching onto this complaint insist one can no longer distinguish between men and women in contemporary America.
Yet other than assorted gays, certain men with long hair, and women with eating disorders in serious need of treatment, it is not that difficult to tell the difference between a man and woman in a pair of jeans or slacks.
If solving that mystery stumps you, perhaps one ought to spend a little less time in scholastic isolation and instead study the intricacies of the human form.
In a Facebook exchange regarding this issue of attire in the church, for suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the average attender adorning themselves a bit more casually while it is probably better for the clergy to dress a bit more solemnly, it was hinted at that I was undermining my usual position of vocational equality.
But foremostly, the validity of that allegation depends on what is meant by equality.
The pastor is to lead the order of service within the church.
That's why one does not shout out how full of it many of them are in the middle of the service.
However, the pastor is not in charge of my home or what goes on in my head.
That is why in my vocation as a critic under the First Amendment why I am able to convey my findings and conclusions to a broader audience through social media upon my return home.
It was also observed that most dress better for work or a restaurant than they do for church.
However, those particular places have established rules regarding what one must wear if one does not want one’s access to such places restricted or rescinded.
Unless one is on its administrative staff, such regulations do not normally exist for a house of worship.
Do we want to start barring those not deemed “good enough” in terms of outer formality from entering the house of God?
These days, so long as the “strategic areas” of the anatomy are concealed, shouldn’t we just be glad someone shows up at all in light of all the other options competing for someone’s time and attention?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, August 16, 2013
In response to a Time Magazine article about choosing to be childless, home school activist Kevin Swanson heaps condemnation and judgment upon those having done so for any variety of reasons. His sect is particularly harsh on a regular basis upon those not having spawned in their late teens or early 20’s. But is it really proper to heap guilt upon people for circumstances or inclinations beyond their control? One would assume God would want the individual to be somewhat selective with whom one decides to breed. Shouldn’t you at least love the person? There is no pleasing those of the Swansonite mentality. They harangue just about up to the point of revoking the status of Christian from those not yielding to their fanatical agenda but would rain down even hotter hell fire upon those seeking a mate beyond the boundaries of their borderline cult. Might it be best in some circumstances for those not suited in terms of personality and occupational status to refrain from having children rather than to end up in a situation where neither parent nor child would be particularly happy? Or perhaps the purpose of harping on this by certain homeschool factions is to drag the remainder of Christendom down to their particular level of misery and dissatisfaction.
A complaint has been enunciated that most dress better for work or a restaurant than they do for church. However, those particular places have established rules regarding what one must wear if one does not want one’s access to such places restricted or rescinded. Unless one is on its administrative staff, such does not normally exist for a house of worship. Do we want to start barring those not deemed “good enough” in terms of outer formality from entering the house of God? These days, so long as the “strategic areas” of the anatomy are concealed, shouldn’t we just be glad someone shows up at all in light of all the other options available for someone’s time and attention?
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
In a critique of Millennials and Christianity, it was observed that people today live their lives in a manner cognizant of what it is they want to reveal about themselves through social media. But how is that all that different than these Amish who react to a matter not by asking whether something is right or wrong but rather out of concern over what the COMMUNITY might have to say about it? Or, to place the issue in a more contemporary context more people can relate to, what Christian hasn’t been less than totally forthcoming as to exactly why they weren’t in the service the previous week or what exactly it was they watched on television the night before?
In a discussion of the Reformation, a fanatic homeschooler mocked a bishop from around that period that believed the way to resolve the junebug infestation of his diocese was to hold a procession and then to excommunicate the offending insects. When you come down to it, how was that idea any worse than the notion promoted by this very same pastor and activist that a number of Colorado residents have lost their homes in wildfires because of gay marriage being legalized in that state? No proof has been provided that these victims played a governmental role in authorizing this disputed matrimonial practice.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
A number of Christians have made it a part of their calling to point out the errors of figures such as C.S. Lewis and Charles Finney. From the extent of the fuss made, one could conclude that these influential thinkers shouldn’t even be considered believers at all. Do those registering these complaints ever address the deficiencies in how the application of what is interpreted to be Biblical or orthodox Christianity gave room for those of deficient theologies to rise to prominence? For example, do those warning against Charles Finney ever speak out against the cold aloofness and detachment that would drive some to embrace the excesses of revivalism? Do the critics of C.S. Lewis ever encourage fellow Christians to try their own hands at speculative literature such as science fiction and fantasy?
Monday, August 12, 2013
A study of studies conducted by a University of Rochester research team concludes more intelligent people tend to be atheists while the dimwitted tend to adopt a religious outlook. However, has all of this brainpower enabled the intelligent to develop a way to extinguish the burn of Hellfire in the Afterlife?
In regards to a column I posted on evolution, it was commented “We need to be a little wiser in dealing with these issues.” That usually translates as that we should not address the issue at all unless one has diluted a Christian response on matters such as these to the point where it it is indistinguishable from standard modernism or postmodernism.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Evolutionists More Insistent Than Ever About Being A Monkey's Uncle
Even Darwin himself is alleged to have relented that his theory would ultimately be proven or discarded on the basis of such geological evidence.
For well over a century now, those wanting to extol what passes for education over and above commonsense have attempted to elaborate any number of conceptual bypasses around the 800 pound subhuman hominid in the room. An article in the May 2011 edition of Discover Magazine makes such an attempt by positioning that we ourselves are the transitional forms or at least what's left over of them in terms of primate evolution.
No longer are we to think of ourselves in terms of being exclusively modern homo sapiens. Rather we are to view ourselves as the genetic composites of previous ancestors such as Neanderthals and those other creatures reminiscent of Chaka from Land of the Lost.
This theory is put forward as an attempt to silence the critics of naturalistic evolution.
Yet the hypothesis ends up raising a number of questions that reveal just what one has to ignore and overlook in order to accept this particular narrative's attempt to account for the origins of man.
Foremost, if other higher order hominids were eventually wiped out or disappeared because they interbred increasingly with what we would recognize as human beings, why wouldn't these alleged ancestors we are more reluctant to embrace as part of our own kind, if they are able to produce a fecund offspring as a result of copulation through mating, be considered fellow human beings?
For is not the history of Anthropology literally littered with the corpses of people thought to be of the status of less than fully human? I recall Ken Ham one time claiming that at one point in the 1800's Australian Aborigines were harvested as research specimens.
Even when these remains are uncovered as part of legitimate research and excavation, it must be asked if a number of these conclusions arrived at are really inherent to the evidence or are active imaginations reading back into the data what these researchers instead intensely want to see.
For if Neanderthals could interbreed with run of the mill human beings to the point where certain evolutionary theorists are insisting that we ourselves are partially Neanderthal, aren't Neanderthals just anther racial or ethnic group?
Researcher Jack Cuozzo hypothesized in “Buried Alive:The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man” that Neanderthals may have been the extremely aged or the diseased suffering from degenerative bone conditions similar to arthritis. For daring to proffer such a conjecture foremost proponents of inquiry and knowledge resorted to intimidation and threats of violence for presenting such an unconventional perspective.
By downplaying distinctions between human beings and what were at one time categorized as species preceding us along the chain of primatology obviously nothing more than glorified apes, radical evolutionists hope to further erode the preconceived boundaries between the species for the purposes of biological manipulative amalgamation.
Several years ago, I posted a column about Darwinistic propaganda speculating that in prehistoric times that the genetic boundaries might not have been as set in stone with jungle fever taking on a connotation that might shock those of us entrapped by a morality that frowns upon transpecies romance. Sophisticates of the scientific establishment easily dismiss bloggers for being out of touch and not playing with a full deck. However, seldom will they speak out against media mouthpieces allied in the cause of foisting a revolutionary secularism upon the nation such as The New Republic. On the cover of the April 23, 2008 issue was a photo that bordered on the creepy. Depicted was a chimpanzee gazing dreamily off into the sky. However, that was not the truly disturbing aspect.
For as the chimp looked to the sky, tucked beneath his arm was a human female. However, this was not the embrace of a zookeeper showing a little affection to one of her charges or like one would share with a pet. Rather, from the depiction, one gets more of the impression that these two are somehow lovers.
The look on the woman's face with head tilted back with her eyes shut and her hand intertwined with the paw of the chimp causes one to wonder if the duo might go swinging in the trees together a bit later if one gets the drift.
Some might dismiss such shock as the rantings of a prude with too much time on their hands. However, numerous credentialed scientists have come out speculating as to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid as mankind's technical expertise continues to advance while moral expertise among the overly educated continues to atrophy.
According to an article in Wired Magazine titled “Science Without Limits”, such a primate hybridization program was suggested by renowned evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. Categorizing the experiment as “the most potentially interesting and ethically unacceptable experiment I could imagine”, Gould speculated such a hybrid would theoretically shed light on how the retention of juvenile characteristics in chimpanzees led to the rise of human beings. That is if one believes in that sort of hooey.
The Wired article insists such an endeavor would not be as outlandish as it sounds. Research conducted with baboons and rhesus monkeys suggests that given genetic similarities such an undertaking might be biologically feasible. Such a creature could be brought into existence through the techniques of invitrofertilization and placed within a human surrogate.
Proverbs 8:36 teaches that those that hate God love death. That not only applies to the individual existential death that comes to mind when contemplating that term horrid to all people of goodwill. It also applies to the broader obliteration of our species that will result from the failure to properly recognize those distinctions that set mankind above his fellow creatures in the natural order below.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 08, 2013
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
In discussions about performance enhancing drugs in baseball, media talkingheads drone on endlessly about the authenticity of the sport and similar banalities. Has society been so emasculated that few have the courage to admit that the main concern about these substances is to shrivel or shrink testicles and possibility of those ingesting such chemicals degenerating into burdens on the health system.
Monday, August 05, 2013
It was announced from a pulpit that two Christians, burned over 30% to 60% of their bodies in an accident where a missionary flipped a church van, seeking restitution through the court system possessed a nominal faith. Interesting how the missionary in the account is not condemned as a nominal Christian for possibly not helping with the medical bills and longterm care of the victims or for possibly driving like a bat at of Sheol. So if our lives are destroyed by a missionary, are we expected to have a cheesy gin plastered across our faces about it? If you are going to use the above account as a sermon illustration, try to at least feign concern for the injured and not make it all about the missionary.
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Thursday, August 01, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Homeland Security Suspends Constitutional Liberties In Vast Regions Of The Untied States
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Trayvonites Threaten Human Sacrifice Of Pastor For Being Named George Zimmermann
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
HUD is collecting reams of demographic data so the agency can ruin numerous areas across the United States on the grounds that every American has the right to live in a COMMUNITY that they are proud of. But what if people believe that the kind of COMMUNITY they would be proudest of was overwhelmingly White and the few minorities deciding of their own choosing free of government interference were explicitly conservative in terms of their philosophical orientation? Furthermore, shouldn't we be disturbed by a government directing considerable resources attempting to ascertain and manipulate opinion in regards to a domestic policy issue?
Monday, July 22, 2013
Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office
Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over his Episcopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity's most spineless forms) insinuated that one's position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does not enthusiastically embrace Darwinism. Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician's political philosophy.
Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and bolts issues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse. These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you are from ACLU types.
Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believing the world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given the worthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.
On the national level, it's not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenched technocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.
If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?
After all, aren't these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strap sticks of dynamite to their chests.
Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world came into existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian that actually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.
Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one's approach to one of life's most fundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable's most highly rated news program, perhaps we should examine these assumptions a little more closely.
Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are no unaltering realities or lasting principles.
For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700's, but those provisions aren't meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivist would argue.
Rights are not something we are endowed with by our Creator as individuals made in his image. Rather these protections are statutory provisions that can be extended and contracted for the benefit of the elite ruling any given society.
The contrasting perspective holds that every detail in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be taken literally. Such an assumption produces a number of worldview implications.
For example, the theist holding to the Genesis account generally believes that the individual is created in the image of God. This doctrine is taught in Genesis 1:26.
As such, the individual possesses an innate dignity and worth. The person is not some random conglomeration of cells to be manipulated, reconfigured, and even obliterated for no valid reason. Thus, those principles viewed as outdated and obsolete are often the only things that prevent us from being obliterated by those so deluded that they can remake the entire world in their own warped image.
By Frederick Meekins
People should be allowed to marry outside their race all they want. Just don't expect the rest of us to deny a fundamental anthropological fact that different races of human beings exist and that those that decide to breed with their own variety should not be condemned or that those that couple outside their phenotype aren't worthy of special applause.
Trayvon Martin's mother said her son was a child and acted as a child. So I guess "children" slam adult's heads against the concrete. If Trayvon was such a child, perhaps his parents should have made an effort to control him better. So I guess children should be allowed out to go purchase soda and Skiddles in the middle of the night?
Friday, July 19, 2013
In reference to an image morphing together Trayvon Martin's trademark hoodie and Martin Luther King's visage, King's niece Alveda assures that her uncle would have never worn one. But is there something inherently immoral about a hoodie? The garment meets nearly every conceivable standard of modesty. The garment is merely a sweatshirt/jacket with a hood attached and predates the ascent of ghetto culture. In Martin Luther King's time frame, gangsters often wore suits, ties, and fedoras. Does that mean that under those circumstances that honest upstanding citizens should never be found with those items in their wardrobe?
Bloomberg A Threat To Liberty On Multiple Levels
Regarding a potential loophole in proposed gun control legislation that would overlook the sale of a firearm within a family, Bloomberg said, "I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family. Why don't you just give --- I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there is something wrong in your family."
This is coming from an elected official so deluded in his own thinking to conclude that it is the place of government to tell you how much salt you can put on your food, what size soda you should be allowed to purchase, or even how much pain medication you should be allowed to have in the hospital.
Perhaps some parents believe requiring a child to purchase an heirloom firearm symbolically invests its transfer with a sense of responsibility.
Extrapolating a generalized principle from Bloomberg's musing, ought it to be frowned upon for parents to receive financial reimbursement should parents decide to grant titles of family dwellings and automobiles to their own children?
If there is one thing that liberals hate as much (maybe even more) than mere commoners defending themselves is daring to conduct an economic transaction that the government might not be able to seize a portion of.
by Frederick Meekins
Contrary to a remark between Albert Mohler and a caller regarding her grandchildren, there is no reason to lament if the young are less than fanatically eager for Jesus to return right this very second. Isn't it a good thing for the young to look forward to the blessings and joys of this life? Doesn't the Bible say that all those that hate God love death? Maybe if Muslims weren't so worked up into a froth for the next world, there might be a little less heartache in this one now in terms of violent conflict. Frankly, isn't it a little hypocritical for those that have experienced and gotten what they have wanted out of life to expect those that have not yet to be as eager for it to come to its conclusion?
A caller to the Chris Plante radio show said that ones does not have a right to self defense if one provoked an attack. Like nearly all forms of revolutionary socialism, on the surface such a claim sounds reasonable. However, to comprehend what the radicals are really advocating, one must peer behind the curtain. To fanatic Obama Voters and Trayvonites, the fact that you even exist, White and Black conservative, is itself a provocation. Therefore, whatever criminality these frothing ne'erdowells inflict upon you is justified in their eyes. Any response on your part but passive acceptance and gratitude will be deemed as illegtimate.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Do Biblical Prohibitions Against Female Clergy Apply To Other Spheres Of Authority?
The logic behind such a position contends that there is no distinction between what contemporary society views as secular and sacred authority.
Thus, it is immoral for a man to submit to a woman in either cultural sphere.
If we are obligated to be this rigorous in our religious thinking, there are other applications of this principle that you are required to implement if you are insisting that you are only striving for consistency in these matters.
Foremost, to say that one is under such and such pastor or minister is to say that one regularly subjects oneself to their teaching.
A book is nothing more than an extended lecture or sermon committed to print.
Thus, shouldn't those wanting to present for public display as evidence of their piety how enthusiastically they adhere to the admonitions of Scripture refuse to set their eyes upon any text composed by a woman?
The aspiring canonists advocating for the extremeism of their initial hypothesis will no doubt try to wiggle out of this corner by saying at most such an interpretation would only apply to doctrinal expositions or monographs.
But if we are operating from the principle that all authority is sacred authority, then why does one suddenly attempt to hide behind the distinction between secular knowledge and sacred knowledge in the area of epistemology?
Next, if one holds to the position that women should be forbidden from holding elected office because such would violate Biblical prohibitions against women exercising spiritual authority over men, on what grounds does the person advocating such a perspective then work for a corporation that allows for female managers, supervisors, and executives?
For if the political realm is to be viewed as another sphere of ministry, on what grounds does one then say that economics and business are separate and distinct from the spiritual?
And most importantly, isn't the person that is employed in such an organization adamant about female exclusion from public life guilty of possessing the same kind of dead faith they are extremely eager of insinuating and accusing so many other Christians around them of suffering from?
By Frederick Meekins