Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks- part 3

I have been looking at modern Feminism and its impact on the church. Since the Women's Liberation Movement came to the fore in 1970, an entire generation of women has been born and grown up under the demagogic language of the movement. Demagoguery is "is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda." (Wikipedia definition). A whole generation of girls has been instilled with Feminist notions by now. "Feminist theory, which emerged from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience."

Interestingly, the flagship for the feminism movement is the UK magazine Spare Rib. Founded in 1972 its first editorial explained that the magazine's role was to "investigate and present alternatives to the traditional gender roles for women of virgin, wife or mother." Wikipedia notes of the magazine, "The fact that Spare Rib reached its high point of circulation and influence ... in the late 1970s usefully charts the women's liberation movement itself." It ceased publication in 1993.

One can see immediately how the Feminist movement was a direct rejection of the God-ordained roles He set out for men, women, children and families in the bible. Adherents to the movement's tenets directly reject biblical notions of family, domestic leadership, marriage (straight and gay), virginity, abortion, sexuality and sexual activity, and more.

Note the movement's flagship magazine Spare Rib is based on the verse from Genesis 2:21-22: "So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

Now that a generation of women have grown up with secular saturation of unbiblical notions of how they are to relate to the world and to men, we look at how the church has been affected. In part 1 I looked at the language of the movement in relation to the church, noting two prominent news articles published this week asking if Jesus was a hermaphrodite and if God is a girl. That was the Demagogic. In part 2 I looked at women's roles in the church as related to the Middle Ages and the modern Mystic. In this last part I will take a look at the biblical role of the woman as related to Logistics.

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks- part 1
Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks- part 2

LOGISTICS

The satanic, fundamental flaw in the Feminist movement (Women's Liberation) is first that women need something to be liberated from. As we see above, the movement seeks to "liberate" the woman from biblically mandated roles, which is really saying it rejects God's order of things. The second flaw is that there is something inherently unequal about the roles of men and woman as wife, mother, husband, father, etc. They are not unequal. They are equal. They're just different. Men have mostly been assigned a role for leadership and women of support. Both are vital and both are for the glory of God. Both win the battle. You cannot have one role without the other role and expect to win the war.

Let's take a look at military logistics to see what I mean.

In the 1862 Battle of New Orleans the major military strategy was to cut off supplies to the city. "Early in the Civil War, Union General-in-Chief Winfield Scott devised the "Anaconda Plan" for defeating the Confederacy. A hero of the Mexican-American War, Scott called for the blockade of the Southern coast as well as the capture of the Mississippi River. This latter move was designed to split the Confederacy in two and prevent supplies from moving east and west. The first step to securing the Mississippi was the capture of New Orleans. The Confederacy's largest city and busiest port, New Orleans was defended by two large forts, Jackson and St. Philip, situated on the river below the city."

As for the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863, it was won partially because of supplies: who had them and who didn't. "The Chancellorsville Campaign was one of the most lopsided clashes of the war, with the Union's effective fighting force more than twice the Confederates', the greatest imbalance during the war in Virginia. Hooker's army was much better supplied and was well-rested after several months of inactivity. Lee's forces, on the other hand, were poorly provisioned and were scattered all over the state of Virginia."

The thing that gets the provisions in a campaign from one place to another is logistics. Even making a determination of who needs what and how much is also one of logistics. You can't win a battle if the soldier is tired and hungry. If he is cold or lost. If the supply train doesn't get there. Or as we have seen in M*A*S*H episodes, of sending winter coats in July or thermometers when they needed blood.

Military logistics is defined as "Military logistics is the discipline of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of military forces. In its most comprehensive sense, it is those aspects or military operations that deal with:
--Design, development, acquisition, storage, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel.
--Transport of personnel.
--Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities.
--Acquisition or furnishing of services.
--Medical and health service support."

Vice Admiral Robert B. Carney, USN said of logistics: “Because of my wartime experience, I am insistent on the point that logistics know-how must be maintained, that logistic is second to nothing in importance in warfare, that logistic training must be widespread and thorough, and that it is folly to waste time on mediocre talent.”

To support logistics, we have a home front. "Home front is the informal term commonly used to describe the civilian populace of the nation at war as an active support system of their military. In a modern industrial nation, the fighting "teeth" of combat soldiers, depends to a considerable degree on the "tail" of civilian support services—extending all the way to the factories that build materiel to support the "military front"."

“… in its relationship to strategy, logistics assumes the character of a dynamic force, without which the strategic conception is simply a paper plan.” -- Commander C. Theo Vogelsang, USN

Logistics is the method by which the dynamism between the Home Front and the Military Front is energized and maintained. "This continuity of "military effort" from fighting soldier to manufacturing facility has profound effects for the concept of "total war." (source)

Let's adapt this language of logistics and home front/military front to the roles God ordained for the family. Christians are in a war. "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:" (2 Corinthians 10:3. Also Ephesians 6:12). We are not battling flesh and blood but we are in a spiritual battle every moment of every day. We are all soldiers. Women who are unmarried, widowed or divorced and single men are just as important and useful for God's glory in the battle as are married folks who are fulfilling their ordained roles.

But a biblical wife will keep a good home. She will labor in her own battles to supply the home base so her soldier who comes home weary from the battle will rest and have peace. His renewed energy will allow him to go forth the next day. Look at the list above again of what logistics is, and tell me that isn't what a mom does every day. The Home Front is just as important to winning the overall battle as are the ones whom the General deployed to the military front.

Jesus is our Commander In Chief. He is the One from whom we receive our battle orders, and that military manual is the bible. The CIC knows what He is doing and why. It is only Him who has the bird's eye view of where this one or that one is needed, or where the more pitched battles are taking place. But He gave us the Word so we may be prepared and we know what to do at all times.

The Enemy will always try to disrupt the supply trains. He will mess with logistics. He will attempt to make the soldiers lose their way, tire them out, and starve them. He has his own "Anaconda Plan" and it is the same as the Union's was: to split the family in two and strangle and starve them out. An entire generation of men have been starved from that comfort and peace they had formerly been receiving in the home.

As far as the church goes, we are reaping a generation of women who have swallowed the demagogic language that women's roles need to be exact in authority to a man's, identical in gender. They have gone so far as to propose that God is a woman and Jesus was a hermaphrodite. So now you see the success of satan's goal. He has always wanted to put himself where God is, (Isaiah 14:14). Soon the feminists will be saying that God IS a woman. And thus satan will have supplanted the biblical view of God to one that he's perverted. In satan's mind, a perverted God who doesn't look like Himself as He showed us in the bible is just as good as a God he has booted out completely.

In the bible, women and men have complementary roles. Complementary does not mean unequal. Understand is that a difference in role does not equate to a difference in quality, importance, or value. The bible says,

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." (Ephesians 5:25)
"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." (Ephesians 5:33)
To be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands ... (Titus 2:4-5)

"I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander." (1 Tim. 5:14)

This is because a man needs to focus on provision and to be able to lead his family into the statutes of God. He doesn't need the extraneous problem of quelling rumors and dealing with slander against his family. A woman who causes the enemy opportunity for slander is draining the resources from one half of the dynamic relationship that is needed for a complete approach to the battle.

This is the man's role:
"If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married." (Deuteronomy 24:5)

I am convinced that if the world were to accept the roles that God put forth there would be such happiness.

In conclusion, I'll end with a personal anecdote. I always thought the woman's movement was bunk. Despite having been raised in the 1970s and 80s and despite my mother being a divorced feminist, I always felt that it was more natural and normal for a woman to be the supply side of the family relationship. (**Note that I understand that finances or circumstances sometimes deems it necessary for a woman to work outside the home. I also understand that abuse is rampant and that there are inequalities in employment relationships etc. This essay is not addressing those.) I was twenty in 1980 when this famous television commercial came out. It features a glamorous Liberated woman moving through her day. The singer croons,

"I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan..."
"I can work till five o'clock and come home and read to the kids tickety tock"

I always thought, 'what good is THAT? Now women have to go out and work AND do all the household chores'. In the latter part of the 80s and the 90s the battle then became who was going to do all the tasks left undone by the woman who is now out working. The whole thing seemed obviously unworkable to me. See, the logistics were disrupted and instead of the battle being against the enemy it became a battle against each other: wife against husband.

The song also croons, "and never ever let you forget you're a man"

Why would a man need assurance he is still a man if the Feminist Movement was properly righting a societal wrong? The implicit message of the song is that now because the woman is taking over the men's duties he needs to be reassured that he is still relevant. But he didn't buy those assurances, because as I mentioned in part 2, men have left the family in great numbers. Fatherless households are a rampant scourge. And they have left the church too.



I know it isn't popular to say so but it really is a beautiful thing to see a wife submit to her husband. And also it is a beautiful thing to see a man sacrifice for his wife. If performed properly and biblically with the Holy Spirit being the logistical glue that greases the dynamics of the biblical marital relationship, bliss would ensue. Not that everything is always harmonious in a marriage, but the overall feeling of bliss comes in knowing each person is functioning how God wants them to. The deference goes both ways. But the girls of this generation have bought the lie of the feminists, that instead of seeking a Godly husband who would cherish her and sacrificing himself for her, that we didn't need a man at all. It is not true,

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18)

Men are alone. It is not good. There is no help-meet for him. And the generation is reaping the price.

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks- part 2

An entire generation has now grown up with Gloria Steinem's declaration, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" (coined by Irina Dunn.). Christianity has not been immune from feminism's effects, as startlingly seen in two news articles this week from a female theologian and a historian about Jesus and God. In one, the theologian proposed that Jesus was a hermaphrodite. In the other, the historian proposed that we can't really know if God is or is not a girl. In part 1 I took a look at the news articles and then at the biblical stance of the position of women in this essay: Is God female and is Jesus a hermaphrodite?

Source

One thing that God said is that the woman is the weaker vessel. (1 Peter 3:7). She is to be the helpmeet. (Gen 2:18). However, no one or the other of the man or the woman is better than the other, the man is urged to love his wife completely and the woman to love her husband completely, just as Jesus perfectly loves both. (Ephesians 5:22-33). I explored these themes and the Feminists in an essay eight months ago titled The Eternal Discontent of Feminists.

Betty Miller explained this submission cycle in her essay, "The Bible teaches that, in the Spirit, women are equal with men, and each must submit unto Jesus as their spiritual head. In the flesh, in the marriage relationship, women are to be subject to their husband's headship. The Lord ordained that the man be the one that would make final decisions in the home because in any relationship involving two people one must be the final authority."

Have you ever heard of a ship with two captains? An expedition with two leaders? A squadron with two generals? No. And it is so in God-ordained relationships. Though we all submit to Jesus, the husband submits to Him as Jesus submitted to God. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her," (Ephesians 5:25). And remember, Jesus gave Himself unto death. Feminists conveniently forget that part of the submission cycle.

Source

So what are the effects of a generation of women being hammered on the fact that we don't "need" a man? Men have fled. They did what women asked, and they left.

--According to this 2008 Census report, one in three American children live without their biological father in the home.
--From 1960 to 1995, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes have tripled, increasing from 9 percent to 27 percent, and the proportion of children living with married parents declined.
--Today, half of all children, and 80 percent of African American children, can expect to live at least part of their childhood living apart from their fathers. (Report of Final Natality).
--Children who live without their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, use drugs, experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, be victims of child abuse, and engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.

But I thought women didn't need men, and by deduction, girls didn't need fathers. Why, two mommies equals one daddy, right? Apparently not.

This is not to say that all fathers do not want to be with their children. A multitude of men feel pain and anguish when they cannot be with them. But in the twisting of a societal usurpation of the traditional male and female roles, there is collateral damage. Society is reaping that damage now.

That collateral damage extends to the church. Men hate going to church. In David Murrow's book on "Why Men Hate Going to Church, he says, "The ideology of masculinity has replaced Christianity as the true religion of men. We live in a society with a female religion and a male religion: Christianity, of various sorts, for women and non-masculine men; and masculinity . . . for men."

The diminishing of their masculinity has led many men to assert it and thus to avoid places where it is perceived that it does not exist, like church. Meanwhile in church, females rise.

MYSTICS

Source

To be sure, in much of the church's history after the first generation of Christians passed, and with the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic perversion of the faith and its power throughout the Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries), the proper role for women was suppressed and the proper role for men was abused. It was during this time the female search for a role in spirituality led satan to tempt women in particular to the role of mystics. Didn't you ever wonder why it is mostly women who are considered the 'great mystics'?

Professor Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College said of mystics in his lecture on Hildegard the mystic, "we usually mean someone who has, or who claims to have, direct access to the mystery of cosmic and human order, some immediate and unmediated apprehension of a total knowledge of what truly is. Such knowledge characteristically comes from an experience of union with the divine or the transcendent, that is, with the higher world beyond the realm of our physical sensations. Mystical experience typically comes through visions and voices, or both (Hildegard attests to both)." Above, Liber Scivias showing Hildegard receiving a vision and dictating to her scribe and secretary.

Hildegard of Bingen was such a one. Born in circa 1098, she lived through most of the 1100s. She began receiving visions from the age of three but kept them hidden until much later in life, when in a vision, she felt the presence of God come to her and heard Him say "Write what you see and hear." She was known as the prophetess of the Rhine. She said, "'…my perception of things depends on the shifting of the clouds and other elements of creation. Still I do not hear these things with bodily ears, nor do I see them with the cogitations of my heart or the evidence of my five senses. I see them only in my spirit, with my eyes wide open…'" It was after one such vision that the entire understanding of the holy books were delivered to her head, at once and instantly. We should all be so lucky.

And to another monk she wrote, "man flies with the two wings of rationality, that is to say, with the knowledge of good and evil. The right wing is good knowledge and the left, evil. Evil knowledge serves the good, and good knowledge is kept in check by the evil, and is even made more discerning by it. Indeed the good is made wise in all things through the evil."

The good is made wise in evil? I was not aware that there was any good in us at all...or that evil makes us wise. It was satan's original temptation to Eve that said if she ate the fruit it would open her eyes to knowledge of good and evil. And it did, but the effects have been devastating right up until this moment, and will continue to be so until the end of the Millennium Kingdom when and death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire along with satan too. (Rev 20:14).

In this article, Female Mystics and the New Millennium, the author proposes the reason so many women are mystics: "A large percentage of mystics are women. Neurological studies of male and female brains reveal that women have better communication via the corpus callosum between the left and right brain. Dreams and visions are the domain of the right brain, while verbal communication is ruled by the left. This implies that while men may have as many mystical experiences as women, women might have a slight edge when it comes to remembering, making sense of and communicating their mystical experiences."

Of one vision Hildegard recorded, she wrote that it was audible to her: "O poor little figure of a woman; you, who are the daughter of many troubles, plagued by a grave multitude of bodily infirmities, yet steeped, nonetheless, in the vastness of God's mysteries—commit to permanent record for the benefit of human kind, what you see with your inner eyes and perceive with the inner ears of your soul so that, through these things, people may come to know their Creator and not recoil from worshipping him with the reverence due to him."

Hildegard had very low self-esteem, this is recorded in her many writings. For someone who thinks little of herself, it is an undeniable attraction to think that one will write something that will affect all of human kind ... yet the canon was closed a thousand years before Hildegard lived and all knowledge of the Creator had been delivered already...

To want to have a certain moral authority, and to have a spiritual authority, was the old temptation which satan stirred up in Eve (Genesis 3:5) and that same temptation still exerts a powerful pull today. Hildegard and the numerous other mystics claiming special revelation also fell for satan's craft. You have heard of wise-women, the phrase "the sage sex" and of new female mystics. As Mary Devlin says of the powerful female energies in the mystic, there is a resurgence of female energy in this time of transition. She wrote of modern mysticism-

"According to Carol Huffstickler, mystical practices are vital to our perception of the whole truth during the current transition. "Our real job right now is to understand that lack of (self-)awareness has caused, at the end of this century, deep confusion, gang violence, government shenanigans and cover-ups, and the out-of-control power of multinational corporations," she says. "The most important ‘Truth’... is one that is absolutely and totally unprovable: we are all sons and daughters of the Living God. We will not find this truth in a particle accelerator. We can only prove it to ourselves by direct experience of the other side."

Of course one will want to seek truth in something other than the bible when one has already chucked the bible's authority out, and with it, the roles of man and woman.

And that is the crux of a problem with the church today. There has been a leak-over of feminism with its over-reliance on 'female energies' of the New Age movement, and with it, their claims of special revelation. This special revelation is no longer relegated to fringe movements such as those led by Shirley MacLaine and her popular books such as Out on a Limb and Dancing in the Light, or psychics like Carol Huffstickler. Huffstickler was a psychic who had a thriving business in Houston to tell where to drill for oil. She died in 2002, of lung cancer, and the sudden onset of her own illness was something she did not predict.

Feminist icon Oprah is one of the most influential women in the world. Unfortunately she is another New Age mystic whose unbiblical positions and ideas have leaked over to the Christian church and thus have gained a foothold of credibility. Formerly a Baptist, she has seamlessly blended the mystical and biblical, and combined with her influence, has created a false church of Oprah. One woman's reaction to seeing her in person gushes about Oprah's feminist theology:

"And she was everything I hoped she'd be: confident, funny, motivating, emotionally moving, and theological. Yes, theological. And not only that, her stories reflected a theology that empowered women, something we don't always encounter in churches these days. ... what I found interesting in Oprah's talk were the ways that she reclaimed religious language in an almost feminist way. I expected her to sermonize about how important it is that we [as women] give up control of our lives to God. This is a fairly typical viewpoint in Christian theology. In fact, there are numerous worship songs that are popular in churches today with lines like "less of me; more of You," "I decrease so He increases," etc. The problem with this theology, particularly for women, is that it encourages us to literally become less of ourselves. For some women, this can manifest itself, quite literally, in anorexia. For others, it appears in a quiet meekness, a hesitancy about ourselves, an overall lack of self-confidence, or worse, a deep manifestation of self-loathing."

Of course, that is an extremely flawed view of what Christianity is, but one finds that theme in Beth Moore's talks, too.  Beth Moore is another such example of such mystical leak-over from the New Age fringe to the formerly fundamentalist church believer. Moore often claims special revelation by mystical means, most recently claiming to have been lifted up by God from her back porch to another dimension to see the global church through Jesus's eyes as Jesus sees it. This kind of revelation is startlingly similar to Hildegard of Bingen's visions.

The woman is the weaker vessel. (1 Peter 3:7). Barnes Notes, which you may know was published in the mid-1800s at the height of the supposed repressive Victorian era, says, "By this it is not necessarily meant that she is of feebler capacity, or inferior mental endowments, but that she is more tender and delicate; more subject to infirmities and weaknesses; less capable of enduring fatigue and toil; less adapted to the rough and stormy scenes of life. As such, she should be regarded and treated with special kindness and attention."

It is a horror and a shame that such secular doctrines and mystical behaviors have infiltrated the Christian church. Feminism is a fake solution to the issues in our sinful society and mysticism certainly is a satanic copy of what church worship and devotion should be. It is a fact that there are societal inequalities for women. But militantly insisting that women receive everything absolutely equal to a man is ludicrous. We are a different gender and we have different needs, strengths, and roles. In the last part we will take a look at Logistics. We'll examine what those biblical roles are and why each is important in the overall complementary scheme God has laid before us.

Part 1: Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks
Part 3- Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks

Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks, part 1

In the prophecy newsletter last Saturday (email me to be included on the free email subscription list) I included an excerpt from a recent article where a female feminist theologian was talking about how we can't be sure Jesus is male. More likely, this feminist said, He is a hermaphrodite, a person that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes. Here is the excerpt from The Christian Post (which includes rebuttals from real Christians):

Feminist Theologian Claims We Can't Be Sure Jesus Was Male
"A [UK] feminist theologian is claiming that Jesus may have been a hermaphrodite. Dr. Susannah Cornwall, a professor at Manchester University's Lincoln Theological Institute, wrote in a recent paper that the idea that Jesus was male is "simply a best guess." She made the comments in response to an ongoing debate in the U.K. over having women bishop in the Church of England.In her paper, titled "Intersex & Ontology, A Response to The Church, Women Bishops and Provision," she states that it is impossible to know "with any certainty" that Jesus did not have both male and female organs."

Then this morning I read the following:

Who knows whether God is a girl
"Bettany Hughes, an expert in ancient history, claimed that Christianity “was originally a faith where the female of the species held sway”. To oppose the ordination of women bishops in the Church of England is to deny the central role women played in the foundations of the faith, said Hughes. “By suppressing the true story of the connection between women and religion, we etiolate both history and the possibilities of our own world,” she wrote in Radio Times. “Consider this: throughout the history of humanity, 97 per cent of all deities of wisdom have been female. “Who knows whether God is a girl, but mankind has turned to the female of the species for good ideas. Hughes is the presenter of a forthcoming BBC Two series, Divine Women, which explores the hidden history of women in world religions and challenges the belief that women should not be priests.She said:  “This Easter will be the last when I go to a church knowing it will be dominated by men. I love my (male) vicar, who has spent 45 years encouraging his flock to be clear-sighted about the world - past, present and sublime.“But the paradoxical thing for me as a historian is that I’m keenly aware Christianity was originally a faith where the female of the species held sway.”

Oh goodness, she must be right! She used etiolate AND a statistic in her response! [sarcasm]. Note that both Dr. Cornwall and Bettany Hughes are British. The UK, I am told, is rapidly falling away from biblical truth. With feminist theologians and historians like the two women presented above, I can see why. That their articles are responses to the current national discussion about ordaining female bishops is another telling and devastating indicator that an entire nation is far from where Jesus wants them to be. How did it get this way? Let's find out.

I am writing a three-part series exploring what I see are increasing attacks on Christianity through women and about women. We'll look at the Demagogic, the Mystics, and Logistics.

PART 1: The Demagogic:
Demagogic language is rhetoric that appeals to the prejudices of the people. I can say with fair amount of certainty that the prejudices of the some feminists have been since 1970 that women should completely abandon their traditionally feminine roles, believing that they were inherently unequal. Homemaking especially was and is today seen as a throwback to less enlightened times. Even women who enter positions of leadership but adhere to biblical world views are soundly excoriated (Saran Palin for example, but not Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton).

The 'less enlightened times' they refer to without saying so outright are the God-ordained roles outlined for women, men and children in the bible. In Genesis God showed us His ordination of women and men's roles.

"And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”" (Genesis 2:18). God further cemented that relationship by saying that when a male and female come together as husband and wife in a covenant marriage, they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24). It's hard to see where the feminists' claims of women's implicit inferiority come in if women are comparable to men and they are one flesh....

Of course the historian Hughes's statement that 97% of other "wisdom deities" have been women is a dead giveaway that she is far from God. The bible says "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." (Deuteronomy 4:39). "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5). There are no other wisdom deities. For the bible says--

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.' (1 Timothy 1:17).

Now, any debate as to whether God is male or female is pointless, because God is Spirit. (John 4:24). He does not have physical characteristics as we do in a corporeal body. However, in His interactions with humanity He presented Himself as a male. In the Old Testament He is referred to as a male by the use of male pronouns. He is Father, never 'mother'. Jesus referred to God as Father. If one believes that scurvy males who wrote the bible were out to suppress women and changed all the pronouns then one does not believe the bible is inerrant, but a man-made document of man made religion, no better or worse than the Koran (Islam), the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu) or the Kojiki (Shinto).

In the New Testament, Jesus came to us in a male body. Thus, God revealed Himself as male and as Father, Jesus revealed Himself as male incarnated and further stated "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) and scripture reveals God as male by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit's use of male pronouns. He's a guy, all right? Get over it, feminists.

I had a conversation with a female friend who was formerly of a Baptist church but wandered away to a seeker friendly, pop psychology, doctrine-lite, social gospel church. She said that there were "books that didn't make it into the bible" and that women's contributions were thereby suppressed. I was aghast, but I am hearing these things more often now. With the rise in gnosticism comes with it a satanic gravitational pull toward mysticism which lifted women to a place of what was supposed higher wisdom but was in fact demonic suppression the kind that feminists can't even begin to understand is their true position.

If we believe that there are some books that 'didn't make it into the bible' then we believe that the bible is errant (That's faithlessness: "I look on the faithless with loathing, for they do not obey your word." Ps 119 158)

Do we believe God is playing mind games with us, telling us His statutes in the bible but holding back the real stuff? (That's satan, telling Eve the same thing in Gen 3:1).

Do we believe the Holy Spirit is ineffectual to protect the canon and allows instead its pollution by men who edited it away from what God wanted? (That's philosophies of men: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Col 2:8).

If we then believe the bible is inerrant then we must believe the roles He has set before each gender. It is one, or the other.

Below is an excerpt on how the books of the bible were chosen for inclusion into the canon. There are no TRUE books that did not make it in. If it is not in, it is because it was already identified as not true, by the following standard:

"The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired."

In 1970, Irina Dunn coined the famous catch phrase: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and it was subsequently promoted by feminist Gloria Steinem and later U2 in their song Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World. It became a tee shirt worn by militant feminists everywhere, including my mother. I was 10 in 1970 when that phrase was coined and my formative years as a girl, as a daughter, were one who was raised by a divorced feminist mother who often wore that tee shirt and while wearing it told me every day I didn't need a man. Oh, and that I needed to be self-sufficient. Well, come to find out,  "Women aren’t Fish and Men aren’t Bicycles" writes Mary Kassian this week.

Kassian said, "In the seventies, Gloria Steinem famously quipped, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Then she and the rest of her feminist buddies set about to convince us of this idea. Sadly, we swallowed the bait. And now a whole generation of girls is being raised to believe that men are inconsequential, and that women can make it just fine without them."

That was the demagogic rhetoric of the feminists. It has been 42 years since feminism came to the fore, an entire generation. How has the latest generation of women and men fared under the demagoguery of the feminist movement? Not well. Let's see in part 2 how feminists' usurpation of the roles God ordained for men and women led to the New Age, and the new female Mystic.

Part 2: Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks
Part 3: Is God female? Is Jesus a hermaphrodite? Feminism's modern attacks