The Bare Minimum Part 1:
Candles among Gunpowder
Gen. James Green
M ODESTY IN AMERICA has all but disappeared! Both men and women (and now we have transsexuals) have abandoned themselves unto FLESH. All one has to do is go back into America’s past—say 75 years—to see just how much FLESH is now on exhibition: consider the beaches, the “gay” parades, the movies, the public in summertime—bare minimum, if that. The nudity, or almost nude is now considered “normal.”
We live in a pornographic society. Nevertheless, the people of God are called to modesty and purity. Yet we see these fading away FAST. This nation is drowning in the ecstasy of a sexually debauched culture—sex CULTure. No matter where one goes, the endless parade of sexuality/sensuality/immodesty plague is flaunting itself. The LUST and THIRST for the forbidden is paramount. Tattooing and body piercing have become a decorative passion upon FLESH. Self-glorification or self-transmogrification? Children are taught from the first grade (school) that the body is beautiful and needs to be used. The pubic (I mean, public) schools have become grooming grounds for active sexuality, be it straight or GLBTQ abominations.
WOMEN ESPECIALLY have been targeted for sexual display—virtually every curve of her body has been “packaged” for a sensual/sexual public exhibit. One old time preacher has written that “a careful study of literature, images, and photographs from the earliest eras in the evolution of swim wear reveals that controversial zones of the body were progressively LAID BARE: upper arms and thighs, shoulders and backs.” He goes on to report the “inching away from the Biblical standard, suits crept up the thigh and down the shoulders to the bosom, yet for all this DARING DISPLAY, the last sensitive region was for a while still protected: the groin.”
But eventually, as time would have it, this last hold out was UNVEILED and is NOW prominently displayed...for ALL to SEE! So, today’s swimsuits clearly define the woman’s pubis—a rounded fleshly protuberance situated over the pubic bones that becomes covered with hair during puberty. We may ask, “Is this not simply another way of discovering a woman’s nakedness?” CAN WE NOT SAY THAT THIS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF CHRISTIAN/ BIBLICAL MODESTY?
Gone from Bad to Worse!
OH, YEAH, even this is outdated. Now we have public nudity, and even sexual encounters in public. And this Jezebel “spirit” is not just in the public square; it is in the Church as well. Even in some states (like California that we know of), the females are baptized in two-piece bikinis at the beaches (or in Churches).
Are we really surprised at the high rate of sexually-related sins in today’s Church?
We don’t limit all this “flesh-show” to swimsuits. We have those tight-fitting jeans, tank tops and what have you—all on display in Church.
LUST IS STILL LUST: SENSUALLY PACKAGING OR SENSUALLY UNCOVERING IT...AS LONG AS IT ATTRACTS. Women and men wear what is glamorous, exotic, and sexually-arousing. But is God pleased in all this? I don’t need to tell you, read His Word for yourselves.
Now the gay/lesbian spirit is on the prowl. Shameful and sinful!! There is no alarm today that a candle among gunpowder is highly dangerous and explosive. But who really takes notice? WHO REALLY CARES WHAT GOD CARES ABOUT? Both Church and State literally hate self-denial, chastity, and sobriety. What about that verse “...women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame facedness and sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:9)? The leaving of the breasts naked, and the showing of the upper thighs, in part or whole, is a transgression. We are called to FORSAKE SIN, flee fornication, and do not commit adultery. Jesus recalled to his listeners of His day that: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mat. 5:27, 28). This, dear men, is for us. Properly adorning themselves is for them (the women).
We can expect such behavior out of the world’s people; but why do we find it in the Church? We’ve been told (or shown) that God’s Word is old fashioned, and His standards are outdated. All this “sexy” stuff, in and among God’s Church reflects shifting attitudes toward sexual expression. This may be the world’s standard, but don’t believe for a moment that it is God’s.
You see, clothes or no clothes is a language—a body language. The sin of the FLESH has now made ready for the acceptance of changing gender roles...same-sex unions made way for same-sex sex. Now that this is “law,” we move towards gender-identity. Am I a male or female? No matter if the part fits the gender, let’s CHANGE it for the HELL of it!! Do you get the drift of it?
The Bare Minimum Part 2:
Undressing of America
Gen. James Green
L ET’S FACE IT, America has been undressing now for decades! Look at those ladies pictures I’ve posted for you in our center pages. Can you believe that American females ever dressed that way? Clean, decent, modest, and even angelic looking compared to those two UGLY lesbians in the middle. Yuk!!!
Now, I know that the “old days” had their share of red-light ladies, but today MOST ladies dress provocative, sloppy, etc. Even Church ladies (and girls) try so hard to show off their stuff. Some, in liberal Churches copy the fads and designs of the world of music (esp. rock-n-roll/rap) scene, or what-have-you. In the more conservative Churches, the ladies really “put on the dog”—ostentatious, pretentious, “plastic fantastic” fools who wear tight fitting clothing, lots of make up and jewelry.
HA! WHAT MODESTY? Today’s females are portrayed as “butt-kicking,” “gun-toting” harlots that rule in a man’s world! We find these “ladies” everywhere. Then we have those ugly “dykes on bikes”—your typical lesbos that would castrate a man at the switch of the blade. In the dictionary, “modest” has the general meaning of respectable, honorable (see Bible dict.). “Modesty,” said one researcher/author, “adornment and dress in an area which women are often concerned and in which there are dangers of immodesty or indiscretion.” I think this is what Paul meant when he wrote “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). Now I know that even modest apparel will not, and does not cover the heart. One can be perfectly dressed yet still have a whore’s heart.
Paul’s use of “shamefacedness” denotes a state of mind or attitude necessary for one to be concerned about modesty, and thus to dress modestly. That word also denotes a moral feeling, reverence, awe, respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one’s own conscience and so shame and self-respect. In short, a shrinking from trespassing the boundaries of propriety.
To be honest, Christian women (and women of the world) who overdressed were considered vain, proud etc. The Churches looked down on such lady-fines. But ALL has changed. THE UNDRESSING REVOLUTION GOT UNDERWAY, AND LOOK AT WHAT WE NOW SEE TODAY!
Paul also used the word “sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:9), which meant good judgment, moderation, self-control, which when seen as a FEMININE VIRTUE, is understood as “chastity” and “decency.” It can also mean, and does mean, a command over bodily passions, and a state of self-mastery in the area of appetite. And I’m not only referring to food (but this is certainly included! Look at all the FAT females America has produced. Horrible!!!) because appetite covers the sexual and emotional. It also covers the area of drinking, drug usage, even going into the pride realm...as well as into the stuff-and-things area. Lust for whatever areas included.
I could say today’s women are OUT-OF-CONTROL in one or all areas mentioned above. Godly women are rare dear ones...RARE! We have dealt with all kinds of females over our 46 years of ministry. One female, fairly nice looking, young, but her appetite for the morbid was scary. She had deep hack marks all the way up from her wrists to her upper arm caused by a knife. We counseled her several times (we were working for the Salvation Army in a large rehab center in Miami, Florida). This lady would hack her arm then call 911. We warned her the last time she came in that God would not always make a way for her rescue. She needed to repent. It happened as we said, 911 showed up TOO LATE. She died! She was addicted to pain, trauma, and the excitement.
Sobriety, of course, has many nuances, but generally speaking, means that a person has a habitual inner self-government. In a word, they have DOMINION and DISCIPLINE over all passions/desires/emotions and thus war off temptations. This is MISSING in today’s teachings and preachings, and certainly is not practiced.
IN THE CONTEXT of sex, dominion and discipline is needed. This world is flooded with sex-related forces (demons). Music (rock-n-roll/rap-crap or whatever) goes hand-in-hand with unlawful sex. I don’t have to tell you readers this. You know it is true. Look at the way, say, music has evolved in Church-la-la-land, and take note of the sensuality/sexuality following. Alcohol and drugs are now permissible in many Churches. There is no standard of dress or conduct. What we have is a WILD ASS Church. Jeremiah the Prophet compared God’s people (in their backslidden state) to: “A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her” (Jer. 2:24, KJV). The RSV says it better: “...who can restrain her lust?...”
GOD, through Jeremiah the prophet likens Israel’s apostasy to a harlot (Jer. 2:20) and to a degenerate plant, a strange (queer) vine (v. 21). All this reflected Israel’s undressing (throwing off the LORD’s sacred covering). Israel’s forsaking of God’s WAYS and going after the ways of the pagans. We would call this today, the Babylonian Jesus way or the Jezebelian way.
Because of Israel’s apostasy, Jeremiah introduces, with merciless irony, the in-your-face indictments. Judah has become like a WILD ASS running wild (Moffatt) in her heat sniffing the wind. In the heat of sexual passion, utterly beyond the control of her owner (in this case, God), but easily approachable by the males who seek her.
So strong is Judah’s idolatrous passion that she runs after her LOVERS the FALSE GODS.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, SADLY TO SAY, MOST “CHRISTIANS” ARE IN LOVE WITH FOREIGN/STRANGE/QUEER GODS! The Biblical God, the Biblical Jesus, is merely ONE of many lovers—this is HARLOTRY!
The pathos of Jeremiah’s (which is God’s) protestation is: IT IS HOPELESS.
JEREMIAH’S COMPASSION to a thief (v. 26) is shameful. The fatal ambiguity of their backslidden behavior is very clear: they want to retain God as their national god, on whom they might count when the need should arise, BUT meanwhile they want to have gods in their own image. Hello!
Can we have it both ways? Can we turn our back on God, but not our face? (V. 27). Listen, we can’t play the whore, and remain in favor with the whore-hater.
Read God’s Word
PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES “Christian” are literally Biblically illiterate. Paul wasn’t merely applying his epistles to those who lived luxurious lives/wore expensive or gaudy clothing (or the lack of such) in the Ekklesias. He was making general statements that clothing and jewelry would and could DISTRACT in many ways...leading some into sin and away from God.
Nude is RUDE!
YES, THERE ARE nude Churches already in existence here in good ol “Christian” America: the pastor, stark naked, reading the Bible to his stark naked “saints.” There is plenty in the Bible that exposes such strange behavior.
Female extravagance was only one thing Paul hit on. He, along with other New Testament authors (even Jesus in Mark 7:20-23), hit on sex-sins. Grant you, women in Paul’s day were a problem. The impropriety of women exploiting their physical charms were duly noted (see our “Gay Way” series along with other related materials on sex). The excess and sensuality that Paul denounces among women was to show that the world’s harlots and courtesans were troublesome. WHY should the Lord’s “bride” look and act like a HARLOT? Yet this harlotry is hardly ever taught against today, being that Church leaders have themselves become pimps and prostitutes. Religious whorehouses abound in America.
Excess and sensuality...both of these bear on modesty. Clothing, make-up (even tattoos), and jewelry give the message of money/pride/ sex/slavery; purity, humility, and moderation give another message.
The Bible’s message to women then and NOW is that they are to live their lives in accord with their Christian profession of godliness, DRESSING MODESTLY, dressing discreetly. When I look at most Church women today, I see NO difference between them and the world. None. More and more are tattooing themselves up, looking and acting more and more like the harlots of the dark.
I HAVE SAID it beforehand: clothing, or the lack of it, is not the primary issue...the heart is.
If one’s heart is right with God/right with its purposes for Christian living, it will govern itself in a godly manner. Sure, we all have temptations (of every kind) that we MUST WAR AGAINST, but to lay aside dominion and discipline is to court disaster.
Our Christian profession need not be reserved only for Church services, but for DAILY LIVING as well.
Idolatry of “self” has become an all-consuming passion these days. Listen to these contemporary (usually female) preachers: the message is not about Him, but about THEM! True Christian/Biblical modesty will not, I repeat, will not, publically expose itself in a sinful or shameful way.
The Bare Minimum Part 3:
Neither Male Nor Female
Gen. James Green
G ALATIANS 3:28 is a liberating verse: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Here the apostle of Christ, Paul, removes all ethnic, racial, national, social, and sexual distinctions with regard to one’s spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ the Lord. ALL my friends, ALL in Christ are EQUAL heirs of the grace of God (1 Pet. 3:7), the promised Spirit (Gal. 3:14; 4:6), and renewal in the image of God (Col. 3:10, 11).
With that said, on the other hand, within the context of spiritual equality, men remain men and women remain women (Gen. 1:27). NO mention of same-sex union/marriage. No mention of transgenderism; man’s/woman’s God-created, God-assigned roles in marriage and society remain unchanged (1 Pet. 3:1-4; Eph. 5:22, 23; 1 Tim. 2:13, 15).
These last verses in First Timothy 2 are connected with vv. 11, 12. To understand what Paul was writing about check out my “Women in the Ministry” series up on the internet. Paul was dealing with certain kinds of women, not all women. Some scholars maintain that the reason for the prohibition is that women, like Eve, are gullible and easily deceived. I say that men can be just as deceived too. They claim that the female cannot lead or teach because they are too often led astray. Other scholars reject this. I also reject this in light of all the Scriptures that extol the wisdom of women (Proverbs contrasts two women—Prov. 1:20-33; 8:1-9:6; 14:1, cpt. 31:26 etc. See also 1 Sam. 25:3-35; 2 Sam. 14:2-23; 20:16-22, Judg. 2:16; Neh. 9:27; 4:4, 5; Deut. 20:10-12; Esther 4:14; 8:17; 9:11, 12, 29-32).
When we study the Bible, principles of exegesis are important, as well as historical and cultural context. Note 1 Tim. 2:10: “But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” Verbal and theological commitment are essential; words and deeds are both required in a “profession of godliness.” Verse 10 requires that women learn of Him (Christ) for themselves, receptively and responsively (this is a modern rephrasing of the ancient Greek).
One needs to research (as I already have) what that strange Greek verb authentein means (usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:12). Authentes is the noun that refers to a person who performs an action (one of the definitions of the verb is simply to be an authentes). Another noun, authentia, denotes an abstract concept such as “power,” “force,” “initiative” and “presumptuous license” (see also the adjective authentikos, and the adverb authentikōs). Paul was dealing with certain women who were using their “sexuality” as a power/force over the men. Remember, Paul was dealing with the culture at Ephesus, Sardis and other cities that were NOT Christian, but pagan. And certain (silly) women had fallen under the “cult” of sex-worship (see Artemis cult where the “mysteries” were performed by a priestess [female]).
In one case from the early Church era, the high priestess “renewed all the mysteries of the goddess and established them in their ancient form (see Forschung in Ephesos 3, 1923, no. 44). We can clearly see that Paul was not forbidding all Christian women from teaching, but certain women who were teaching non-Biblical and non- Spiritual things.
Unquestionably, “to dominate” is a valid meaning of authentein. Paul was forbidding certain women, under paganism, to teach Christian men, who were using sexual cohesion of a sort.
GRANT YOU, there ARE DUMB WOMEN. But there are also DUMB MEN AS WELL. Biblical Christianity makes the distinction between godliness and ungodliness: watch your content and context. Over the years, I have encountered men who have forever doomed women to inferiority and imbecility. I have to admit, many women, too many in fact, are under the Jezebelian “spirit.” But we can’t lump all women into this mode.
The Jezebelian “spirit” is essentially and unalterably the ENEMY of the Holy Spirit, of Biblical Christianity and the genuine Christian male and female. This murderous spirit is brutal and ferocious...it attacks in the palace or the parlor. Where you find a woman ruling with an ungodly spirit, you’ll find ol queen Jezebel.
But we can’t label all women “Jezebel” because they may be called into the ministry. Too many Ahabs are there just as well.
Relax Our Vigilance
NOT FOR A MOMENT! When we do, all Hell breaks loose, and all manner of the demonic will flow into the household of faith. Look at today’s Church...what one finds in the world is now found in the Church. Homos and lesbians (now trans’) are “teaching” the Bible!! There is no hint in the ENTIRE
Bible that permits this kind of ABOMINATION. Illicit passions have replaced the love for our Savior and for His Word. The love of the world has replaced the love for His eternal kingdom. “Dignity” and “purity” now mean dirty sex.
Explicitly and Firmly
HOW EXPLICITLY and how firmly has the Bible upheld the HOLY, the RIGHTEOUS, and the PURE? From Genesis to Revolution (Revelation). Biblical Christianity (as opposed to Babylon Churchianity) places the wife by the side of the husband—male and female together in marriage sanctioned by God Himself. Nowhere do we find ONE Scripture in the entire Bible where lesbianism and/or homosexuality (men) is honored by God or/and Old Testament/New Testament author(s). Paul dealt with those sex-sins in his day. Jesus didn’t have to, for the prohibition against sex-sins was binding in His days upon the earth. He merely reinforced the man-male/woman-female marriage (see Lev. 18 for Holiness Code. See our “Gay Way” series also).
God honors both male and female “if” they live right. Both are called to do ministry…Christianity has thus carried out its genius and its precepts in the actual elevation of the female/male character wherever it has gone. When one or the other usurps the role of the other, perversion sets in. We HAVE a PERVERTED Church today…Females who should not be ministering are doing so; males who ought to be the head are a tale. What we have (with exceptions) is Jezebel and Ahab ministries. WE HAVE A “PERSONALITY” CULT CALLING ITSELF CHURCH.
We have (self-proclaimed) beautiful people (sexy, rich etc.) sufficient to captivate hearts and minds, but that which is odious, dastardly and terribly languid: avowed infidelity, gross immorality. Both the man’s and the woman’s virtue, dignity, honor, and well-being are hardly noticeable. Not protected by God or His Word; His Word is our aegis (shield/armor), yet today’s clergy (and congregations) have stripped themselves of His covering—stark naked! as it were—and have fitted themselves with worldliness: godless, fruitless, and filthy. REPENT!
The Bare Minimum Part 4:
Bible Translators Under the Jezebel Spirit
Gen. James Green
O NE WOULD NOT THINK Bible translators would be biased, after all, they only want to make the Bibles perfectly correct. Right? Wrong! In a word, they want to make our Bibles “politically correct.”
Let’s examine what is going on in our GLBTQ society.
I was sent a paper that has of late dealt with this issue of “gender.” I’ve been saying for years now that the whole homosexual agenda is an ATTACK upon God’s authority, His creative prerogative for MAN-MALE/WOMAN-FEMALE.
The big stir is over the NIV gender-neutral translation of the Bible. This WAR has been going on for some time now. It has come to the forefront over gender-neutral language. Is it right or wrong (as if God didn’t know what He wanted in the first place!)?
What is Your Gender?
I ASK, why is it so important to change language? God is not confused, but men and women are. To doubt Biblical language on “gender” is clearly a biased confusion of biology and language. Well, leave it up to these left-liberals who love being controlled by the “spirit” of Jezebel (who murdered God’s prophets and had a hatred for truth, see our many articles on this).
WE QUESTION their stated goal: “…the goal of Bible translation is to communicate the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek into English.” They say: “translation inevitably involves decisions, not about whether or not to obscure, but about what to obscure and what to reveal” (article from WELS seminary’s official pub., 2016). So, the real goal of these translators is to CHANGE generic “masculine” nouns to “feminine” or gender-neutral nouns, appropriate for the 21st Century English-reading feminist sensibilities. This, of course, results in obscuring masculine generic nouns.
Attack on the Male!
PLAIN AND SIMPLE, the whole agenda—over time...is to emasculate the male and defeminize the female. This directly attacks God’s creative order for male/female. This is progressive chicanery. Have you noticed how many “Christian” men are almost sissies, womanish, soft, and/or cowardly? And the women are the opposite, although some may still look lady-like, they have a Jezebelian “spirit” that usurps male authority. When words like “man” and “he” are changed, we can bet that we are confronting intentional bias…a BIAS against “masculine” or androcentric language.
Ah, the subtlety of all this is basically feminist propaganda. Again, Jezebel at work. You see, a Jezebel “spirit” is not limited to a female, it possesses males also—males who are not men of God, but under the control of demons.
THESE CRY BABIES are distraught about God’s creation: “So God CREATED MAN in His own image, in the image of God CREATED He him; MALE and FEMALE created He them” (Genesis 1:27, KJV). These Jezebelian workers of witchcraft (see 2 Kings 9:22 where the Bible speaks about Jezebel’s “whoredoms” (fornications) and her “witchcrafts are so many”) accuse the Hebrew and Greek of being unnecessarily patriarchal and they must find a distinction between gender and humanity (as if this is possible).
The Nicene Creed (Lutheran) has already been changed (others have done it also), declaring that Christ “became fully human” instead of “became man.” We may inquire, does becoming fully human mean that Christ became a man? Or does becoming a man, mean Christ became fully human? We ask, WHY is there a difference between His “humanity” and His “gender”? Christ Jesus, the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), must have all the physical features of the first Adam, INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO PROCREATE.
The Greek word for “man” in the Nicene Creed can be translated as “humanity,” but the Hebrew clearly states in Gen. 1:27: “male and female.” No human being is fully “human” without gender. Both were created in God’s own image; the soul of man/woman was made in God’s image.
After the perfect creation, God separates the woman from the man, forming two distinct persons. This doesn’t sit well with the rebellious translators, hence, language change. They see the Bible as too MASCULINE. TAKE IT UP WITH GOD. I’m sure the author of Genesis didn’t have in mind a “man’s world.”
THIS IS EXACTLY what the Jezebel “spirit” wants: to shame men for being men. And the feminists wet on themselves over this whole idea. I’m not anti-woman, only anti-Jezebel!
THE CREATING of man-male/woman-female (Gen. 1:27) was followed up with “…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (fill) the earth..” (v. 28). What is left OUT of this creation story is a third gender—the trans. What is also left out is man-man/woman-woman relationships. MAN/WOMAN IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CREATOR HAD IN MIND. The male-female couple were complementary to each other. These SICKOS who want us to believe and accept their skrewed view of Genesis need to be rebuked.
God has not changed the complementarity of male/female anatomy. All this sick “pink” perversion needs to be TRASHED, and the sooner, the better. Male/female are perfect godly fits from the standpoint of “Divine Design” (see our “Gay Way” series for deeper insight). These Jezebelian sickos try their hardest to shame men for thinking, acting and being men.
These Ahab translators (and liberal scholars/preachers etc.) turn things upside down in order to please the female pew-sitters and female “ministers.”
IN A NUTSHELL, these perverters of truth question the perspicuity of Scripture (clear in statement or expression). Since 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us that “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God” (Old Testament reference there), we conclude that the Spirit of God moved upon the writers to write what they wrote. Perspicuity does not mean men/women will understand everything in Scripture.
If these left liberals are correct, generic masculine nouns are a barrier to the Gospel and evangelism, nullifying perspicuity.
IT GETS WORSE! They equate racism with the inherent discrimination of generic masculine nouns against women. Really now? If one carefully goes through the Bible (Old Testament/New Testament), one will see that God/Christ/The Holy Spirit honors women. While the Scriptures do point out evil/bad women (men as well), there is no way one can honestly say the Scriptures honor men above women. I know that they will throw the Eve sin in our face (see Gen. 3:1-24): Eve caused Adam to sin! Well, consider that God spoke DIRECTLY to the man, not the woman: “And the LORD God commanded the MAN (Adam), say, (of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it…” (2:16, 17). It was the serpent, not God, that spoke to Eve. So, in truth, Adam (the male/man) was guilty of disobedience by harkening to Eve, and not God. Which sin is BLACKEST? The “race” issue will not hold water. While it is true that many men do hold Eve responsible for causing Adam to sin, that is discrimination...in Christ, both are heirs in God’s Kingdom (Gal. 3:28).
OUR WORD ABOVE means “madness characterized by disordered ideas.” These skrewed perverters of truth are the antithesis of Biblical authors. The writers of Scripture did not resort to their views, their profundity was from the Holy Spirit. Today there is this man versus woman war which has raged for centuries. Church history is replete with misogynistic leaders who have taught that women are INFERIOR to men and have been regulated to a lifetime of spiritual imprisonment. On the other hand, we have the exact opposite—warriors for women’s rights…even though some women are full of the devil (see my series entitled “Women in the Ministry” on the internet).
And what of these cultures, like Islam, who are mostly anti-woman (see my articles on “Women in Islam”)? You might be missing your head if you taught gender-equality in their countries.
THESE GENDER-NEUTRAL freaks view Scripture as a sort of hate. They hate generic masculine nouns. They claim this is discrimination, loveless, racist, and even inhibits evangelism. There were more souls Biblically saved and discipled when men and women used Scripture the way it was meant to be used, than today. All we see discipled (forget salvation!) today are rebels, not righteous. In short, these perverts are IMPOSING the skrewed American P.C. cultural legalism on the Bible…and on the public.
IT IS IRONIC that some who are pro-gender-neutral are also anti-women preachers. Some are misogynistic in character, yet they hate the male-dominated Scriptures. I think these poor souls need to see a psychiatrist.
Is not all this gender stuff creating a bigger inevitable synodical crisis?
ARE WE NOT smart enough to see that the word “men” in Romans 1:27 means “male”? Are we not smart enough to see that the word “men” in 1 Timothy 2:4, “who will have all men to be saved…” means both male and female? It doesn’t make any more sense to reinterpret this to say: “God wants all people to be saved.”
Look at Gen. 1:26 in another translation: “And God said, ‘Let us make adam (man, an earthling, humankind) in our image (besalmenu), in accordance with our likeness (kidmutenu), and let them have dominion…” What do we see? “adam” = both male and female, not just the man/male. We also see the word “them,” meaning male/female.
Verse 27 reads: “And God created the adam in His image, in the image of God He created it (or: him) male and female He created them.” Now go to cpt. 5:1: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him;” (v. 2 continues…) “male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called THEIR NAME ADAM” (KJV). The word “likeness” = bidmut or demuwth. So, men/man can also include women/woman.
AS AMERICAN culture becomes more and more gender-neutral (bathrooms, clothing, legislation, signage, political correctness, marriage etc.) we should expect Bibles to follow.
At no place does the Bible promote matriarchy over patriarchy. Hey! man/woman is expected to change, not God and His Word. While Jesus did accommodate Himself to the Hebrew culture, He taught the Jews (and whoever would listen) to conform to Him and His Word.
The truth is that the universal Church must conform to Christ’s culture; it must dominate it. Beware! This whole Politically Correct Jezebelian, feminist agenda wants a religion whereby God worships us! We’re to FOLLOW HIM!! He never tells us that He is to follow us, or follow some Church agenda.
The Elysium of love, that is a place or state of ideal happiness, must be rooted and grounded in God’s love, not man’s selfish love. Today’s Church has become an ignominy, a disgrace to the human race…nugatory (worthless, of no value) rules from American pulpits. The “flesh” is at war with the “Spirit.” THE ONLY WAY TO END THIS WAR IS TO SURRENDER TO CHRIST AND STAY SURRENDERED.
“But General Jim,” you say, “I’ll be a religious recluse if I take your advice!” Following Christ with all your heart is His advice, and His command, not mine. All I do is remind you of what He expects. TO HELL with all this political correctness that strains at gnats and swallows camels. These religious demons who tamper with God’s Word/subvert His Word, will pay dearly.
All this complemental submission—acting obedient but not heart obedience, has literally taken over most of professing believers. Fakes, flakes, and snakes fill these houses of ill repute called Churches. God loathes such souls. MYRIADS FILL CHURCHES WEEK AFTER WEEK, PUTTING ON THEIR RELIGIOUS VAUDEVILLE ACTS. Folks, the curtain is coming down, and the show is over. God is going to seal us either in His grace/mercy, or in His wrath/fury.
Using words like he, him, his, man, men does not make the Bible anti-she, her, hers, women, woman. If we want to make a crisis out of this, we very well could say the Bible is a feminist book.
The Bare Minimum Part 5:
When there Were No Clothes
Gen. James Green
G ENESIS 3:21: “Unto Adam also and to his wife (Eve) did the LORD God make coats of skin, and clothed them.”
That was the result of v. 7: “…and they knew that they were naked…” Both knew that they were naked (vv. 10, 11). This nakedness was more than physical, it was also spiritual: they lost the GLORY of God that covered them.
This, I feel, was when the couple first felt sex consciousness. Before the losing of God’s GLORY, His supernatural covering, the nakedness of which they hitherto “were not ashamed” (2:25) of. By their disobedience, their consciences were awakened, hence, nakedness equated intolerable indecency.
Sex, I mean the act, was ordained by God, and therefore, not evil (2:18, 21-23). It was good. But it had gotten INFECTED with evil when they disobeyed the LORD. This started the New World Order in the world—in truth, a NW Disorder!
But not all is bad. The awakening of sex consciousness was accompanied by a consciousness of guilt, thus containing a recognition of the fact that ALL human relationships are DISORDERED in one way or the other.
God: First Clothes Designer
GOD PERFORMED the first marriage (between man and woman!); He was the first to design man’s/woman’s clothes. He covered the body not just their private parts.
When Adam and Eve were covered by the GLORY of God, though naked, they felt no sense of public disgrace. “So what,” it is asked, “transformed ‘good’ nakedness into ‘shameful’ nakedness?” Whatever you decide, the fact is that God made “coats of skins, and clothed them” (3:7, 10, 21). “Coats” (Hebrew koot-to-neth) literally means “to cover.”
We know that Adam and Eve made their own clothes of fig leaves, but they were rejected by God. THEIR OWN WORKS would not do; their own (in)sufficiency of their own (fallen) righteousness was rejected by God, and is still rejected.
Although we have no photos of Adam and Eve’s clothing, the word “coats” is consistently used in the Old Testament to mean a “tunic-like garment of man and woman, worn next to the skin…a long shirt-like garment” (see The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Heb.-Eng lexicon. See also Strong’s Ex. Concordance of the Bible).
WHY IS THERE no shame today in the way “Christians” dress? or undress? Could it be that their consciences have been “seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:2)? The Greek kauteriazo (for “seared”) means “to render unsensitive.”
Now I don’t believe that God expects His people to wear exactly what the ancients wore, but HE DOES EXPECT HIS PEOPLE TO CLOTHE THEMSELVES SO AS NOT TO CAUSE OTHERS TO LUST…FALL. This is all too common these days.
HAVE YOU EVER considered how the saints in Heaven are dressed? Consider Rev. 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14. NO nakedness or partially naked saints there.
We, as His people representing His Kingdom on earth, ought to consider how others view us. We may not wear long robes, but we can dress with modesty and sobriety. Whatever else may be drawn from Biblical accounts of dress, it is obvious that clothes covered the body, especially in worship. REPENT IF YOU HAVE THROWN OFF THE COVERING OF GOD.