Galatians 3:28

The other quote that socialist/feminist theologians hang on to for dear life is Galatians 3:28 which says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Boslooper says, "The passage in Galatians 3 should be understood as Paul's major theme, his universalizing principle on the relationship between the sexes. For the apostle there is an equality between the sexes in salvation." I agree. God loves men and women equally. But it doesn't mean that there are no differences between the sexes. Beverly LaHaye in The Desires of a Woman's Heart writes, "'Biblical feminists' like to quote Galatians 3:28, claiming that it means that there are no distinctions between men and women .... But, clearly, there are distinctions. Paul was not writing that distinctions such as those between Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, male and female did not exist in the world. Slaves did exist in Paul's day, and Paul wrote that they were to serve their masters well. If there were no differences between men and women, it would make no difference whether a woman married a man or a woman; but God makes it clear over and over in his Word that homosexuality is an abomination to him. Obviously, differences exist in the world, and we must live with those differences as God has commanded us."

Aubrey Andelin in Man of Steel and Velvet, writes,"Advocates of the 'share alike' philosophy demonstrate an unusual lack of insight into human behavior as they ignore completely the serious social problems which arise from this blurring of the male and female roles. Countless children grow up in environments where the distinction of the sexes is so obscure that no clear-cut example exists for them to follow. Many homes lack definitive leadership, and the very differences that should be emphasized are purposely minimized as men act like men. This in turn can lead to underdevolpment of the child to his own sex and in some cases to homosexuality."

Frances Schaeffer, in The Great Evangelical Disaster, echoes this thought:"If we accept the idea of equality without distinction, we logically must accept he idea of homosexuality. For if there are no significant distinctions between men and women, then certainly we cannot condemn homosexual relationships."

Mrs. LaHaye goes on to say: "Paul was making the point that men and women are equally sinful and equally redeemable by the sacrificial death of Christ. Missing the point, many feminists continue to argue that men and women are interchangeable. To infer that men and women have the same function in the body of Christ from Galatians 3:28 is taking this Scripture out of context."

"We can't deny, however, that there have been real problems in the church with regard to the treatment of women. As Mary Kassian notes in her book The Feminist Gospel, too often men have been authoritarian, domineering, and proud, while women have been passive and insecure. Locked into stereotypical roles of service and behavior, men and women have not thrived according to God's plan. This is not the biblical model; the Bible teaches that women in the church must be treated as coheirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7), equal and yet different, distinct from men but equal and just as vital. We must seek to complete, rather than compete with, each other."

"As Christians, our goal is not to 'find ourselves,' but to lose ourselves. Paradoxically, it is in losing ourselves that we find life. Jesus told us, 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.' (Luke 9:23-24)."

"Christianity is incompatible with seeking full possession of our individual rights. To say we serve Christ while serving only ourselves is antithetical. A life focused on self -- me, my, mine -- cannot bring happiness. Any woman who emphasizes her personal rights will breed discontent. Men and women alike are called to abdicate their 'rights' and lose their lives for the sake of others. This is, after all, the example Jesus Christ left for us."

"When a church begins to question the Bible's inerrancy and cultural relevance, it steps onto the slippery slope of moral relativism ...." Amen, sister.

Boslooper has a chapter called "Feminist Theologians: Women's Ordination." His dream, like all disgusting feminists, is for women to be over men. He profiles prominent rebellious women such as Mary Daly. He quotes Rosemary Radford Reuther saying we all need "liberation...from the false polarities of masculinity and femininity" and we need "the exorcism of the demonic spirit of sexism in the Church." She and Boslooper are the demonic spirits. He saves the worst for last. He has a full page picture of True Parents and then says, "Woman has the right and responsibility to create herself in God's image and as a fulfilled individual express herself as a mother and as a professional woman." Boslooper does not see stay-at-home moms as professionals. A UC sister has "brothers with whom she shares equal rights and responsibilities in every area of life." Are brothers going to cook and clean 50% of the time? Are Army Rangers and Navy Seals going to be 50% women? Will the cow jump over the moon? This is pure Communism.

Boslooper's particular area of focus is getting women to compete with men in sports and hopefully beat them. He has no sympathy for men feeling threatened when women beat men at sports. He quotes somebody saying this crap: "The healthy relationship is for the male to recognize that physical prowess in a woman, even though it may exceed his, makes her just that much better a woman." Either women follow this lunatic to hell or follow Aubrey Andelin to heaven. The choice is yours. After all the years and all the hundreds of books by feminists, it still never ceases to amaze me how they keep thinking the earth is flat. For the life of them, they cannot ever use logic or common sense. Maybe in something like bowling a woman can beat a man but in many sports a woman will never win. He has a picture of Chris Evert, the tennis player. Boslooper apparently wants her to compete with men and if she beats them they should not have fragile egos. Men need this to grow and to respect women when they compete and win over men. The problem is that if you did not separate women and men, Chris Evert, who for years was the best women's player in the world, would never bother to even try to compete because she would always lose. I watched her in an interview once and she said that the best players in the world are ranked. I think it was one to a thousand. She said every man on that list could beat her easily. She said every top male player for colleges could beat her. She would only start winning at mid-level college team players. If men and women were not separated, how many women would go to the Olympics? How many women would make it on the Olympic basketball team? How many top women college basketball players could get in the NBA? The best of men will always be better than the best of women in sports and every area of life outside the home. What is so obnoxious about Boslooper is the attack on the homemaker. Boslooper incorrectly reads the Bible, thinking that it is against women because it keeps them in the home. He says, "Biblical tradition ... keep women in a position inferior and secondary to men." He says "Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant religious communities" have "discriminated against women." Women in Godly patriarchal marriages are not"inferior"'or"secondary." They are treasured so much that men die for them. In Boslooper's sick world, women get to be cops and soldiers so they can have the honor of protecting and dying for men like Boslooper. I don't like Boslooper's crowd. I like women who are feminine. Billy Graham's wife, Ruth, has as one person wrote, "a dazzling advertizement for marriage." She said once, "I am a strong believer in women's lib, to this extent: I think women should be liberated from ... having to work for a living .... They need to be liberated ... so they can devote themselves to their homes." It's a joy to read and see anti-feminist marriages. It is a heavy spirit world around feminists like Boslooper who hate patriarchy.

Boslooper says that the UC teaches women to be a "mother" and "a professional woman." Feminists, like Boslooper and Betty Friedan, degrade motherhood by not seeing it as a "profession." The greatest profession on earth is to care for a family, homeschool children, care for the elderly and volunteer to help the poor. Boslooper is part of the elite who dominate intellectual thought and that is why Barbara Bush was hated by the women at Wellesley College when they found out she had been invited to speak there. Catherine Beecher was one the most influential writers of advice books in the 19th century. She urged women to obtain "appropriate scientific and practical training for her distinctive profession as housekeeper, nurse of infants and the sick, educator of childhood, trainer of servants and minister of charities." In this way women would "develop the intellectual, social and moral powers in the most perfect manner" so they could become excellent mothers, wives and social reformers.

And those who rationalize their work away from home because it is an emergency like World War II and women had to become Rosie the Riveters, are blind to the kind of war we are fighting. Brothers are not overseas carrying guns and killing bad guys while the little wife gets a check from Uncle Sam. Our war is winning the next door neighbor. We are supposed to be competing with Jerry Falwell and the Lutheran Church near me who are out knocking on doors in my neighborhood.

One sister wrote me saying she heard that Father wants to have a Senate of men and House of women. I would like to see this quote in context of the speech. It's too easy to get into some phone game where people think they hear something when Father isn't saying it. Let's look at this quote that this sister says she heard. Is this Father's big goal? Sisters are to focus on being political leaders? Or is he more interested in billions of women finding happiness in their homes where they focus on homeschooling? What is interesting about this so-called goal is that the men and women are separated. I was watching a video of Mother speak in Japan and Dr. Pak was translating. He was not standing next to her as he does with Father. He was way off at another podium. I have never seen such a thing. But it is principled because there can't even be an appearance of something unprincipled as a married woman associating too freely with a man who is not her husband. The clincher to this example is that our Founding Fathers made the Senate to have longer terms and to be a place of reflection as opposed to the more emotional, noisy world of the instant represented by the House. They wanted the Senate to guide with more thoughtful wisdom the House of Representatives that may not see the long view. Senators had six year terms, and Representatives had two year terms. Senators were not supposed to be interested in re-election so often so they could spend more time being contemplative. Both were valuable, but different. The Senate was subject, and the House was object. Notice in this example that men are in the Senate. The women are still in the object position. Also, homemaking is a lifetime career. Politics is supposed to be a temporary place of service and is not supposed to be a career for men.

The same argument goes for the idea one sister told me that Father had of women having their own United Nations. Again, Father is separating men and women. Father knows that both men and women have a brain and that women are interested in politics and men are interested in the how their house is run. But Father is not for mixing men and women together in leadership.

The argument that women can and should lead as much as men because True Mother will lead the church after Father dies also doesn't stand up. There are exceptions to every rule. Zachariah and Mary is one of them. Mother is an extreme exception. She is the only True Mother of the universe and if Father wants her to be in charge then that is fine. Also she is older and never spoke publicly until she had had 14 children and they were all older. This is a transition time and in this intense cultural war we do some things that are not always graceful and smooth and the way it will be in the ideal world. Nevertheless, we should be very cautious when we use means to the end that are different than the end.

One sister wrote saying that in the future we are going to end male leadership and "couples will run governments." Again, we're talking of far less than 1% of women (even if it's true which I doubt). And just what is it that "governments" in the ideal world will do? Everyone is perfect. There is no crime, no hunger, no police, no wars, no poverty, no pollution. Everyone is like Rev. and Mrs. Moon. Everyone believes the same. If a bunch of great-grandparents want to get together once a month and give some advice to 50 billion people I don't care. What has that got to do with men being the head of the house? True Parents are perfect and Father is head of his house and head of this church. Does a couple match? No. Father does it alone. One day Father made 4000 matches. Men are made to work in the world and make many quick decisions. Women are not. If you don't believe me, read his sermons. He only says it about nine million times.

Previous Home Next