Choice Tidbits from the Book: Page 252
For those who may be prone to excuse feminists because they think that feminist scholars are simply ignorant of the Bible and the issues involved, rather than consciously attempting to subvert the message of the Bible, consider these comments of Russell:
“Feminists of the Jewish and Christian faiths are faced with a basic dilemma. Are they to be faithful to the teachings of the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian Scriptures, or are they to be faithful to their own integrity as whole human beings?”— pg. 137 (emph. supp.)
Note well that Russell clearly sees that there is a choice to be made, indeed a “basic dilemma,” and a distinction to be observed, either fidelity to Scripture or fidelity to feminist “integrity as whole human beings,” whatever that means. Russell is expressly cognizant of the fact that “authority” is a theme that surfaces constantly in this book…
“Whether or not feminists choose to discuss this issue, it is pressed upon them every time they propose an interpretation or perspective that challenges a dominant view of scriptural authority and interpretation.”—pg. 137
It should come as no surprise at this point where Russell’s loyalties lie and that fidelity to Scripture is made (at best) subordinate to her fidelity to the feminist cause. Amazingly, and without any indication of intended humor, Russell titles her next section, “The Biblical Basis of My Theology”! But, of course, from the hermeneutical strategies already endorsed by Russell, and the explicit admission that feminism involves a choice to be made between fidelity to Scripture or fidelity to feminist “integrity as a whole human being,” it is manifest that the Bible is no “basis” at all of her theology. It is, from the feminist perspective, simply a negative force to be reckoned with. Thus we see that Russell, with a crystal clear apprehension of the issues involved, self-consciously and deliberately chooses a path of lies and deception.
Russell continues:
“In spite of the patriarchal nature of the biblical texts, I myself have no intention of giving up on the biblical basis of my theology…In spite of its ancient and patriarchal worldviews, in spite of its inconsistencies and mixed messages, the story of God’s love affair with the world leads me to a vision of New Creation that impels my life.” —pg. 138
Well, those are a lot of weighty “in spite ofs” to overcome! Russell acknowledges as much:
“Perhaps it would be more useful to give up on the Bible as a normative source of my theology, but I don’t seem to be able to do that. The biblical witness continues to evoke my consent, even as I reject many of its teachings as well as its patriarchal context. And, as Mary Ann Tolbert has pointed out…feminist biblical scholarship is profoundly paradoxical because ‘one must struggle against God as enemy assisted by God as helper, or one must defeat the Bible as patriarchal authority by using the Bible as liberator.’ ”—pg. 140
Comment on these remarks is hardly necessary. Here, out of their own mouths, is what “biblical feminism” is all about in all its stark naked blasphemy. Many of the teachings of the Bible are to be rejected! God is an enemy to be struggled against! The Bible must be defeated by using (i.e., subverting) the Bible!
Russell continues:
“No interpretation of authority that reinforces patriarchal structures of domination would be acceptable for feminist interpretation. The Bible is understood to be a ‘dangerous book’…The Bible is especially dangerous if we call it ‘the word of God’ and think that divine inspiration means that everything we read is ‘right.’ ”—pg. 140-141
It is clear from statements such as these that Russell and her co-conspirators do not know God, that they are no Christians at all, but the emissaries of Satan, false prophets and false teachers “taken captive by the devil at his will.”