PART XII-A: Christian Reconstruction, ATI, Abuse & Submission – Submission


Screen Shot 2014-06-22 at 9.57.12 PM“…“The woman certainly differs from the man, for she is weaker in body and intellect. Nevertheless Eve was an excellent creature and equal to Adam in so far as the divine image: that is, righteousness, wisdom and eternal salvation, is concerned. Still, she was only a woman. As the sun is much more glorious than the moon (though also the moon is glorious), so the woman was inferior to the man both in honour and dignity, though she, too, was a very excellent work of God.”  Martin Luther

It’s called the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son.  It is very important to the He Man Woman Haters of patriarchy and Christian Reconstructionism.  In order to perpetuate their eternal subordination of women, turning them in to second class citizens, godly leaders of the SBC, godly men like Wayne Grudem, think that the Nicene Creed is all about the Subordination of the Son.    There’s a problem with this.  Evidently the ECUSA and the SBC don’t have the same Nicene Creed.  In fact, in all my years as a Baptist, the Nicene Creed was never used, once.  Presbyterians recite the Apostle’s Creed, but give the Nicene Creed the shaft, or they did when I was growing up in the PCUSA.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

There is absolutely not logical reason why the Nicene Creed should have anything to do with the eternal submission of women, but in order to control and manipulate women into second class citizens, it is terribly important to subordinate the role of Christ.  You see, according to the patriarchal mind, Man (husband) = God and Women (wife) = Christ who is subordinate to God.  In fact, like angels dancing around the head of a pin, they are making a total and complete disaster of theology – to keep women in their place.  From the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood comes the following tap dancing to completely disprove the work of Kevin Giles, debunking the He-Man-Woman-Hater’s-Club view on theology.

“…Giles claims that in order to maintain an orthodox view of the doctrine of the Trinity one must reject the possibility of the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father. He argues that the history of trinitarian doctrinal development affirms his view. Further, he suggests that all modern trinitarian expressions that harmonize with the Nicene tradition reject the possibility of the eternal subordination of the Son, whether in being or in function. The primary purpose of this article, however, has been to show that Giles often overstates his case and in some instances simply misrepresents the facts. The question of the eternal subordination of the Son is not a question of trinitarian orthodoxy. Further, the evidence given ought to encourage readers to investigate more thoroughly the way Giles represents each theologian he uses to present his claims. Apparently, these reviewers see the boundaries of trinitarian orthodoxy as a bit wider than does Giles-something for which traditionalists are not normally known. In the end, Giles’s intention to expose the heresy of the eternal functional subordination of the Son has not been successful….”

In order to force women into submissive roles godly men in godly Calvinist churches must turn formerly Christian theology inside out, upside down, and mangle it into something unrecognizable.  They toss a little Calvinism, with a pinch of Mormonism, and a heck of a lot of the Old Testament.  Christ is optional.


“...Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being. Subordinationism, in its various forms, was an Early Christian doctrine until the mid 4th century, when the Arian controversy was finally settled, after many decades of debates, with the formulation of the doctrine of Trinity.

Subordinationism has some commonalities with Arianism, but has some differences. While Arius and his followers were certainly also subordinationist, the Arians went even further to assert that the Son, as a creature, is virtually ignorant of the Creator, the only One who was accepted to have the full divine nature according the Christian apophaticism. Subordinationism thrived at the same time as Arianism (fourth century AD), but long survived it. Its chief proponents in the fourth century were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, both of whom had once given support to Arius. Athanasius battled Subordinationism throughout his career as bishop of Alexandria, often labelling it as Arianism. This was a rhetorical tactic which both highlighted what he believed was its logical outworking, and caricatured it.

Subordinationism is to be distinguished from the widely held view of “relational subordination” or “economic subordination.” In relational subordination, both God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are said to be subordinate to God the Father because they never command the Father, but rather do the will of the Father. Consistent with the Trinitarian view, this does not mean that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in any way inferior to the Father by nature or being. On the contrary, both the Son and the Spirit are held to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father because they are of the same being or substance as the Father. Yet, Christ would not be seen as equal to the Father in his essence and in his attributes….”

In order to make women into submissive creatures, they must embrace heresy with the Holy Trinity.  It is that simple.  It is so simple, that women are just like children.  They are to be under a man’s control, all their lives.  And, once again, we get our perversions of scripture from Bill Gothard.  In short, the CBMW basically lies about the Holy Trinity in order to force women into submissive roles.

“...Children, of course, are under their parents’ authority–until they marry, Gothard says. At that time, a young woman is transferred to the protection of her husband. Under his authority, she is counseled to submit and develop a “meek and quiet spirit.” If she disagrees with him, she is taught to make an “appeal”–nonetheless deferring to any decisions he makes, as long as they don’t require her to do something immoral….”

The very godly John Piper has edited a book abut godly womanhood and godly manhood.  It has 175 pages. It took me all of  about 20 minutes to read it, if that is any indication of the depth of the twaddle in it.

What Is Submission by Christina Fox Page 58
What Is Submission
by Christina Fox
Page 58

In other words, a godly marriage reflects the Gospel to the world.  I never knew that one.  Fascinatingly, Christ, according to Fox, is the wife’s final authority.  A wife…”follows her calling to submit in marriage, she is ultimately submitting to Christ.”  She gets her spiritual identity through Christ, not her husband.  Her husband’s role is to help her and build up her faith.  Like I said, Lord Almighty, who knew? (Page 60).

“…Gender identity and complementarianism… I hate ….the word ‘complementarian’, I prefer the word ‘patriarchy’… Because complementarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles? So an egalitarian would say, “Yeah, I’m a complementarian too, it’s on the basis of gifts.” I think we need to say instead, “No you have headship that’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…”..”  Russell Moore

Ignorance is not bliss.  Dr. Jeremiah Gibbs observed that Paul was a radical when it came to women’s rights.

“...As many have argued, the permission for women to learn which is given in verse 11 is an innovation within Jewish circles. Here as in so many other places, Paul wasn’t affirming the patriarchy of his time. He was subverting it. Only men learned the Scripture in such a way. But women having religious authority was not unique in Ephesus (where Timothy is pastoring when the letter is written). In fact, the goddess Artemis, who’s temple was the most prominent religious feature in Ephesus, had a woman as high priestess. Unlike the “temple priestesses” in Corinth, the high priestess in Ephesus was not a “leader” with no real authority that was being abused for sex. The Artemis priest had real authority. So the women in Ephesus would be even more likely than the women in Corinth to take the permission to learn as a matter of privilege that could be lorded over the men. Other women in their city already held such religious authority. It’s likely (though not certain) that Paul is calling these women to learn in submission to God, not to men, just as the men would be called to do….”

This is revolutionary.  What Christ taught about women is revolutionary.  Unfortunately, due to the abject historical, cultural, and sociological ignorance of the era in which they lived, today’s godly ‘Christians’ are wallowing in abject stupidity.  The second part of this submissive tale deals with the lies fake historians tell us about submission.

I read where a young woman asked Doug Phillips if the women of the church they attended could get together and discuss a specific subject.  He told her that it would not be Biblical.  Women were to be silent in church.  Has anyone bothered asking Dougie if adultery is Biblical?

Jen Fishburne and her husband were having problems.  Doug Phillips and his wife stepped in, lied about the situation, and then treated Jen like dirt, because she was a woman.  She was given a list of things she could not do, basically express herself, do anything on her own, or even question her husband.  She wrote:

“...The outcome of this Kangaroo Court was that Doug Phillips determined that I had not fully repented for sins committed thirteen years earlier, before I was saved; …These guidelines were not temporary guidelines, something that would go away when communion was restored. These guidelines turned out to be what is generally expected of every wife according to Doug Phillips’ hyper-Patriarchical view. Men are in charge, and as such, wives are never to question them. There is the occasion for an appeal, as if we were little children, but these guidelines were never intended to be temporary in nature. Even after communion was restored, and even though my family was in danger, I was reminded that I could not speak ill of Mark to anyone. …”

This is so disturbing on so many levels, including forcing someone to be ground into the dirt to repent when a godly man – a godly adulterer thinks they have not repented. This is what submission is all about.  It is about doing what godly men want their godly congregations to do, in order to make them look godly.