The most grotesque example of socialism/feminism invading the UC is when it publishes and then sells Thomas Boslooper's book, The Image of Woman, at literature tables at hotels when Mother speaks. I've suffered through hundreds of feminist books, but Bosloopers is the worst. It is a pure expression of Satan. He taught for years at the UC seminary. I can't even imagine the damage he has done to the minds of so many members, some who are leaders in the UC. His book is so bad I don't even know where to begin. He starts off with the common fantasy of feminists that there used to be a society of women leaders called Amazons. Logic and reality are not a part of socialist/feminist thought. The distinguished anthropologist, Steven Goldberg says, "Over the course of fifty years Margaret Mead repeated her denial a hundred times, in response to one or another claim that she had found a society that reversed sex roles; in a review of my The Inevitability of Patriarchy, she wrote 'It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed .... Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." The title of his article is called "Feminism against science" subtitled "'Feminist science' began with a willful misreading of Margaret Mead and went on from there. Besides feminist anthropology, now we have feminist physics and feminist astronomy. Watch out for feminist molecular theory." The UC thinks it is above the cultural war that rages on in society because they are off having "internal unity of heart." What is really happening is that the UC is out selling Boslooper's book whose central message is against patriarchy and for women to be competing with men in the marketplace.
In the book Tender Warrior the author, Stu Weber says, "The pattern of masculine leadership and feminine responsiveness is well established in Scripture. It is also very conspicuous in our world. Stephen Clark, a historian at Yale University, observes: 'Men bear primary responsibility for the larger community. Women bear primary responsibility for domestic management and rearing of young children. Every known society, past and present, assigns to the men a primary responsibility for the government of the larger groupings within the society, and assigns to the women a primary responsibility for the daily maintenance of household units and the care of the younger children.' In our suspicious culture people might expect such a statement from a male sociologist. But Sherry Ortner, feminist scholar, states it even more emphatically: 'The universality of female subordination, the fact that it exists within every type of social and economic arrangement and in societies of every degree of complexity, indicates to me that we are up against something very profound, very stubborn, something we cannot root out simply by rearranging a few tasks and roles in the social system, or even reordering the whole economic structure."
"I would flatly assert that we find women subordinate to men in every known society. The search for a genuinely egalitarian, let alone matriarchal, culture has proved useless.' We're dealing with something very fundamental here. Masculine headship is universally present. It is the anthropological standard. It is the historical practice. Most importantly, it is the scriptural mandate. How then should we respond to it? Accept it and live with it. Trust it and obey it. Take the orders, and follow them. As men under authority."
"Still, many in our culture kick against it. It is campaigned against. It is mocked. It is ridiculed. It is legislated out of fashion. But it will persist. Manhood is here to stay. How tragic though that some Christians, who reputedly accept the authority of Scripture, would resist it."
"The solution (to this confusion) is manly love. Men must develop a thorough, biblical, manly love. Now what is that? In a word -- headship. It is leadership with an emphasis upon responsibility, duty, and sacrifice. Not rank or domination. No 'I'm the boss' assertion. Most people who have to insist that they are the leader, usually aren't .... The key to leadership is serving -- not 'lording' it over .... Harsh dominance is not the way of Christ."
Take your pick. Does Stu Weber and the Andelins sound better than Boslooper and another professor at the UC seminary, Henry Thompson, who wrote articles in the UNews making sure everyone knows that Ephesians 5 is outdated? I choose the right, not the left.
Either feminists are right, or anti-feminists are right. There is a Cain/Abel division here, and the UC needs to get on the side of Abel instead of being on the side of Cain but thinking they are Seth who has gone "beyond" his brothers and doesn't really care what they were fighting about. There is no Completed Testament Age new and exciting ideas shedding light on whether the earth is flat or round. It's a black and white issue. Father is not pioneering anything new when he teaches against fornication, adultery and homosexuality. We can join the Christians on this. The same is true for patriarchy. We should be standing with Christians such as Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, George Gilder, Gary Smalley, Tim and Beverly LaHaye. We should be standing with Mormons like the Andelins and Stephen Covey. We should be standing with all the other major religions. This is the last days, and God's people must stand against feminists like Anne Wilson Schaef who wrote Women's Reality: An Emerging Female System in the White Male Society. She writes that women make the mistake of thinking they really need a man:"Many women feel that they cannot be whole without a man." She says women shouldn't be"terrified of being alone." Not only are men in general not that important, but the specific man, the messiah, isn't needed either: "Remember that in the Original Sin concept, we can only be 'saved' with the help and intervention of an outside intermediary. We are taught that we will be all right if we can attach ourselves to an innately superior being, a man, who will intercede for us." So much for Jesus. The UC must be careful to not let feminists influence them.
We have a century that has sown alternatives to patriarchy instead of perfecting it and has reaped a harvest of broken bones and broken bodies the like of which the world has never seen. It is a century of total chaos. Father constantly says the world, and especially America is out of order. One book I read that went into detail on how all the major religions believe in patriarchal order said this about Islam: "For Muslim folklore, one of the signs of the end of history is a reversal of this order. When women rule, the Judgment Day is nigh."
The sixties sexual revolution was Satan's attack on patriarchy. The core ideology of Satan is the blurring of the roles of men and women. Satan's greatest achievement was taking out the word "obey" from the marriage vows.
A pastor wrote an article for the magazine Christianity Today entitled "Love, Honor, and Obey" on June 6, 1969. He wrote, "There was a time when the word 'obey' was included in marriage vows. The husband vowed to love and honor his wife and she vowed to love, honor, and obey her husband. The vow of obedience was based on Ephesians 5:22 and First Peter 3:1, where wives are commanded to be in subjection to their husbands."
"Today many marriage counselors and pastors regard the vow of obedience as an anachronism. They argue that the husband-wife relationship taught in the Scripture is culturally conditioned. Since it was fitting in Bible times for a woman to be submissive to her husband, they say, Christians were enjoined to follow this principle to avoid scandalizing the non-Christian community."
"Women today are less inclined to vow obedience than they were in years past. Deluged by books and magazine articles by advice-to-women experts, modern women view marriage as a partnership in which the husband and wife stand as individuals who maintain separate identities. Some women are outraged at the thought of a bride's vowing obedience. Mary Daly in her book The Church and the Second Sex attacks what she feels is the Church's prejudice against women. She says the Church contradicts its moral teachings by harboring 'oppressive and misogynistic ideas' about women."
"Women need not feel threatened. God has provided safeguards for the woman in Christian marriage. Her husband is to love her as Christ loves the Church -- to have her best interest always at heart. What a staggering demand on the husband! He is to love her as he loves his own flesh, for, says Paul, she is his flesh. The apostle Peter commands husbands to keep in mind that woman is a fragile vessel, and is to be treated as such (1 Peter 3:7). What is more, she is an heir together with him of the grace of God. Whereas the human relationship of the husband and wife is that of the leader and the led, there is no such distinction in the spiritual realm. The wife is just as much the object of God's grace, just as much the heir of the riches of divine grace, as her husband. The husband who selfishly indulges in the good things God gives and refuses to share with his wife stands in danger of divine displeasure."
"Peter's teaching answers the argument that in Christ there is neither bond nor free, neither male nor female. It is true that the male-female distinctions are broken down in Christ; woman is the object of God's grace as much as man. Yet in the organization of the home God has ordained the headship of the man and the submission or obedience of the wife."
"When a pastor teaches that wives must be submissive to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24), even if the husband does not obey the word (1 Pet. 3:1), women are sure to ask how far they are to go in their submission. They will want to know what they are to do if a husband is cruel or is a violent drunkard."
He says that women are basically to follow. If a husband says not to go to church, she is to obey and act as 1 Peter 3:1 commands her. She is to be silent and prayerful. Women need to study books like the Andelins and Hanford's Me? Obey Him? to learn how to be a follower. Marriage, like anything, takes study. Christian women's books usually have stories that help dramatize these abstract concepts. I don't have the space to tell some of them. You'll just have to read them on your own. The pastor above goes on to say a woman should only leave the home if she the husband is violent, or she just can't obey. But both should stretch to save the marriage and reconcile. Sometimes divorce is necessary, but many times the people weren't patient enough. The most published Christian writer is Og Mandino. In one of his books he tells a little of his story. He was a fall down drunk for many years, and one day his wife packed up, took the kids and left him. Years later he accepted Jesus, remarried and built a happy second family. He has become an exemplary family man. The key to love is being patient as first Corinthians teaches. The pastor ends by saying,"there are times when a woman must leave her husband for her own protection. But it must be with a view to reconciliation (1 Cor. 7:10,11)."
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
The seeds for wifely disobedience came from the founder of American feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. A biography of her says that at her marriage ceremony on May 10, 1840,"Suddenly a question occurred to Lizzie. Exactly what did this minister intend to say in the marriage ceremony? The gentleman seemed rather surprised by the question, but he rapidly told her the words he would use."
"No!' Lizzie shook her head decisively. 'You must leave out the word, 'obey.' I absolutely refuse to obey someone with whom I am entering into an equal relationship."
"Henry Stanton looked startled, as if he had just discovered what might be in store for him. Nevertheless, he nodded to the minister." And America went downhill.
There is a cultural war going on between the feminists and anti-feminists. Hatred towards patriarchy is the core belief of feminism. Either you are for it or you are against it. Either you a part of the solution or the problem. It is absolutely black and white. Either you are a capitalist/traditionalist or socialist/feminist. Feminists have experimented with every imaginable type of alternative to patriarchy in this century. And this century has been the absolute worst century in human history. The intellectual Berlin wall is socialism/feminism.
Bones and Flesh
Any member who thinks Father is not clear or can be read different ways is wrong. Father is absolutely clear. He is not some pioneer trying out things until he finds the truth. He has said the same thing his entire life. Men are subject and women are objects. He is the ultimate teacher. He says it in different ways so everyone can understand. One way he explains it is by using vivid language. He repeatedly tells American sisters that their husbands are "bones" and they are "flesh". Father says, "The reason man's bones are made stronger than woman is ... to earn money ... to support his wife and children." He says men are "over" women in a million different ways. Father is always using the word "order". He is even into ordering how clothes are put away. He says man's clothes are always ( no interchanging) to be over the woman's: "When using a wardrobe, man is to use the right or upper side and woman the left or lower side. Woman shouldn't put her skirt or underwear on the man's upper clothes. The woman's clothes shouldn't be on the man's clothes." It is time to have prescribed places for clothes and for brothers to be respected and even as the Bible says, to be "revered" as patriarchs. Sisters have got to get over the negative connotations this century has put on that word and study the Andelin's books on how to live this way. Father is prescribing lots of things. He says, "In walking, men are to step right foot first and women are to step left foot first. Men are to sit in the East and women are to sit in the West. There is always a certain order to anything -- the order of setting the table or the order of hanging clothes." He says, "Man is to look down upon woman from above." Patriarchy is a loaded word to Satan. He has made women and men hate the word. UC members must not think patriarchy will be substituted with androgyny in the building of the kingdom, in the actual kingdom of heaven on earth or in spirit world. Men and women will become sinless but they will not change roles. Any member who is waiting for new patterns to emerge can stop waiting. They emerged in 1960. Father is the perfect patriarch.
Let's look at Boslooper's book again. We looked earlier at the nonsense of Amazon women he teaches about. He later says western civilization unfortunately went with Aristotle instead of Plato. A syndicated columnist, Kingsley Guy, wrote an article about this topic explaining how the Democratic party is descended from Plato and the Republican party is from Aristotle, "In 1994, American voters opted for change .... the battle lines have been clearly drawn .... Republicans say they are for strong families, small government and private property rights." Democrats are "collectivists who favor Big-Brother government, and who are hostile to traditional family values and private ownership of property .... In a much broader historical context, the battle lines can be traced all the way back to the 4th century B.C., and the point-counterpoint between Plato and Aristotle in ancient Athens .... Aristotle's social thinking helped form the intellectual foundation of 18th century classical liberalism and modern bourgeois capitalism. Plato's helped form the basis of 19th century socialist doctrine, epitomized by Marx .... Plato thought women deserved equal political rights and were capable of joining the ruling class. Aristotle argued that women were not suited for politics or leadership positions in society. While women were due great respect, Aristotle insisted a woman's proper place was in the home." He says he may sound "politically incorrect" but these "long-dead, white male, toga-clad egghead thinkers .... have had a profound influence on ... 20th century America." Ideas are powerful, and Boslooper is teaching Plato at the UC seminary.
Boslooper says, "The time has come to take a fresh look at Hebrew-Christian scriptural tradition, to view the Bible as the record of man's prejudice against woman" and then to look at it with feminist glasses and see how mankind for thousands of years has not read it correctly. Boslooper spends the rest of his book bashing male patriarchy. Like all Feminist theologians he says "dominion over creation" was men destroying the planet. If women had been "equal" with men then there would have been a "constructive force" instead. Boslooper has discovered that "St. Peter and St. Paul" look like the greatest "male chauvinists of history" if we read the Bible "strictly literally and somewhat casually." Boslooper is finally leading us to the promised land of men/women harmony. What is this magical breath-taking insight? We have to throw out all those interpretations that men were the head of the house. Boslooper quotes one line out of a passage of 13 lines on men and women relationships, Ephesians 5:21, which says that men and women are to "be subject to one another" which, to all feminist theologians, means men don't lead women. What it really means is that men and women have equal value. The next 12 lines are the most famous in the Bible for man being the "head of the wife." But these 12 lines are now to be ignored because of the one line that supposedly cancels out the rest. Feminists see what they want.