[John]

As to my posts, please excuse the fact that I put out more than one of them at a time, amounting to a lot of text, and that they are often responding to things posted much earlier. I’m not very well suited to the quick retorts (or the quick anything).

So, as to some past posts, here are my thoughts:

• One poster has asked more than once about what Jane’s mission is. The mission, should you choose to accept it, can be easily found by looking at the title of this thread. That’s a hint, by the way. Let’s see, “New Jane Anderson Website.” Have you looked at the website yet? There is an “Our Mission” tab on the home page.
  
  
• Another poster thinks, I guess, that if something is repeated often enough that people will eventually believe it. If you want to know what Katharine Bushnell and Jane Anderson think, you will have to read their books. If you believe what you read on this thread from others about what Jane and Katharine wrote … well, let’s just say that you will be left with a twisted, inaccurate presentation. I finally got tired of reading about the hermaphrodite view that Bushnell and Jane supposedly believe in. Here is what Bushnell states in her book:

We have already (par. 24, and Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family. (God’s Word to Women, para. 41) [underline added]

She wrote, “possible.” Katharine does not have a stated belief in the hermaphrodite, and Jane does not even mention it at all! If you are going to post with integrity, you should accurately reflect what someone wrote. By the way, this thread is supposed to be about Jane’s work, not Katharine’s. Although posting about Bushnell is not a bad thing, to do it to associate her with Jane in order to try to discredit Jane is wrong; or, to do it just to avoid engaging with Jane’s presentation is also wrong.

• Another couldn’t see the connection between male gender bias in the Bible and John and Jane’s marriage. The following sequence is an over-simplified presentation to, hopefully, get the connection across:

1. John and Jane believe in Jesus and the Bible.
2. John thought about and treated Jane according to a traditional understanding of the Bible.
3. John did not feel right about this, and Jane did not respond as John expected.
4. John wondered why what he understood as the traditional perspective seemed to run counter to what Jesus taught.
5. John read God’s Word to Women, in which he learned that there was apparent bias in the translation and that the bias was likely due to the male perspective of the translators.

Jane and I have seen, up close, many failing or failed Christian marriages (many of them because of the Local Church). The most infamous, without a doubt, was the Local Church elder who carried on an affair with another Local Church elder’s wife that led to both of them divorcing their spouses and marrying each other! One large, contributing factor was that the wife believed that she had to submit to her husband (and the elders) in everything, even in things that were wrong; and, their marriage suffered as a result. She eventually threw off her marriage and the Bible, rejecting a God whose Word had consigned her to such a subservient role and miserable life.

Jane wrote Chayil, mostly to speak to Christian women; but, of course, men can learn from it, too. Hers is a fairly comprehensive look at the topic, more than these posts would lead you to believe. The writings that I post are my appeal to the men, but in a much briefer way, to try to get them to at least consider the topic more thoroughly.

• There has also been some attempt to connect Jane to feminism and equality for women and similar political endeavors. I’ll just state that it is obvious to me that those kinds of comments come from those who have not read her book, those who do not understand what they have read, or those who deliberately want to distort the issue and discredit her. Jane does not call herself a Christian feminist or Christian egalitarian, as some women do today.

I decided to reply to these responses because they caught my eye during my scan since my last post. As for things I did not respond to, maybe the things I write in upcoming posts will help clarify what is true and will facilitate moving forward.

Speaking of responses, I still haven’t noticed anyone taking on the unusual translation of a Greek word for “mastering the house” and a Hebrew word for “strength, power, and wealth,” especially when the Hebrew word was translated differently when it was applied to women rather than men.