Unexpected criticism of the Mighty Men conference

The past Mighty Men conference organized by Angus Buchan as usual drew criticism from various angles, some expected, others totally surprising. His message is quite controversial in certain circles and one can expect criticism for his views on the family from the secular community and non-Abrahamic religions.

It is certainly understandable that in this day and age advocating the man as the head of the household attract criticism from non-Christians, it is even a healthy debate that I would love to get into in the near future, but that is not the issue I want to address today.

No, what I want to address is much more curious: criticism from Christian theologians and Bible scholars. Angus’ voice hadn’t even properly settled on Sunday before no less than two ladies with PhD’s in the field of theology took exception to his preaching. One contends that we cannot by default put the man at the head of the family in modern times, the other contends that Jesus taught us that men and women are equal and that that nullifies the man’s position as patriarch.

In the first instance, as soon as you start arguing from the “modern times” angle, you are no longer arguing from a Biblical perspective and therefore your theological credentials do not come into play. I would even go as far as to assert that it is downright dishonest to mention that you are a theological authority on Christian matters, but then proceed to argue from a secular perspective. Again, remember that I am not arguing for the merits of either moral code, I am just pointing out that you can’t call yourself one thing and then talk like another.

In the second instance, Jesus never taught us that His Father’s laws are null and void since He was born. He actually said that He did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it. It should also be noted that the New Testament is very clear on women’s role in the church and at home:

Titus 2:3-5 “[3]Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. [4]Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, [5]to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”

1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 “[33]For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, [34]women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. [35]If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

(all passages quoted from the New International Version)

We must also recall what women did not do to minister when they accompanied Jesus. He did not choose women to be among the 12 apostles. He did not send women to teach, preach or heal. So far as we know He did not invite women to the last Supper in Matthew 26:20. When the great commission was given in Matthew 28:16-20, it was given to men. In brief, women did minister to Jesus and with Jesus, but never in a capacity of leadership or of authority such as teaching or preaching. It is also Ironic that by being a female theologian, the two ladies are already in contravention of the very teachings they claim to be authorities on.

Now, again I am not arguing for the merits of these teachings, I am merely arguing that if you are going to hold yourself up as a representative of the Christian church, you should be criticizing people based on what is actually written in the Bible. Otherwise you are not speaking as a learned member of the Church, but as a secularist, atheist or follower of a non-Abrahamic religion and you should present yourself as such.

Om te verskil

Om vir die eerste keer op die internet in 'n argument betrokke te raak kan vir enigeen 'n aardige ondervinding wees. In die eerste plek is jy nooit seker hoe ver jou opponent se kennis strek nie en in die tweede plek het hy of sy die hele wye internet as inligtingsbron tot sy of haar beskikking. Dit is dus 'n baie dom besluit om te wil lieg oor jou eie kundigheid of geleerdheid, want binne 'n minuut of twee kan inligting jou tesisse (of gebrek daaraan) opgespoor en geverifieer word.

Maar gelukkig sny hierdie swaard albei kante toe wnt jy kan net so maklik self die internet inspan om twyfelagtige feite na te vors en te weerle waar nodig. Moenie bang wees om vir bewyse soos grafieke, onafhanklike studies en dies meer te vra nie. Dit sal vinnig wys of jou opponent weet waarvan hy praat en of hy net 'n propaganda-papegaai is.

Moet ook nie in die strik trap van 'n ander uitkryt as "oningelig" of "onnosel" net omdat hulle anders dink as jy nie. Dit is veel slimmer om eers vir jouself te vra:"waarom dink die persoon soos hy dink?". Dit is soms nodig om hom uit te vra oor sy denkwyse, want wat jy op die internet sien verskyn, is slegs 'n opsomming van die persoon, en nie die geheelbeeld nie. Dit is uiters moeilik om in twee dimensies vas te vang wat vir jou drie en 'n half dimensies neem m uit te pluis.