Our Theologian-in-Chief Does It Again

Just hours after making a national disgrace of himself as he massacred the Bible and shook his fist at God, our Prime Minister is at it again. Yes St Kevin is again showing off his theological prowess, this time informing us all that if we take the Bible seriously then women must be locked up as second class citizens.

Really – I kid you not. He is of course utterly clueless here, and the more he speaks, the more he shows himself to be a buffoon and a fraud, certainly when it comes to biblical understanding. He is every bit a great pretender here as he is in so many other areas.

In Tasmania he was asked more about his slavery remarks in an interview, and he again made some absolutely absurd and appalling remarks. He again took one part of a passage and held it up as some sort of one-punch, knock-out winner. And he again made his bogus claim that if you believe the Bible you have to support slavery:

“In my response to that fellow last night, when people start hurling biblical quotes at me, I know a bit about my New Testament as well. As I said last night, if you going to be a serious biblicist about these questions we’d still be supporting slavery in the 21st century.”

Um no Kevin, that is utter baloney and you know it. It is exactly because people in the West took the Bible seriously that slavery was abolished. But I deal at length with that foolishness elsewhere: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/09/03/marriage-and-slavery-apples-and-oranges/

But wait, there’s more. Immediately after peddling his slavery falsehood, he came up with this absolute zinger: “By the way to all of you who are women, it says in the New Testament according to St Paul that wives should be submissive to their husbands, so just bear all that in mind because it’s in the Bible. If we in fact took all that seriously you know what, we might as well repeal also the Sex Discrimination Act.”

Wow, mind-boggling. And this guy thinks he is so clever. Yeah right Kevin, if we follow our Bible there would be no equal rights for women, and they would be mere second-class citizens. Sorry Kevin, but you are mixing up your religions here. Women are indeed second-class citizens in Islamic countries.

But in the West which developed out of the Judeo-Christian worldview, women are not second-class. Once again, it was Jesus and Paul who made exactly the opposite case than the bogus one Rudd is trying to present here. Jesus of course elevated the status of women greatly.

It was simply unheard back then to see women as full equals. Jesus shocked his contemporaries in the way he so valued and treated women. And Paul of course in Galatians 3:28 told us that there is “neither male nor female in Christ”. As to the passage Kevin abuses, it is Ephesians 5:22.

Of course he conveniently failed to also mention Eph 5:25 which gave what was a revolutionary command to men at the time: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” This was quite radical stuff back then, but it shows the high value the New Testament places on women.

That there may be a hierarchical pattern to be found in the home, with the children also submitting to parents, does not take away from the inherent worth and dignity given to women by the New Testament. Yet Kevin the theologian would have us all believe that if we take the Bible “seriously” then women will be back in chains somewhere.

Rudd then continued, “Let’s get real about this.” Hey, I am real about this, and I am real about what the Word of God teaches. Kevin is the one who needs to get real here. He is simply twisting Scripture in a contemptuous fashion to push an absolutely unbiblical and anti-biblical position: homosexual marriage.

And notice how he scornfully and pejoratively spoke of those who were being “biblicist” here. This is of course a term of derision regularly used by the theological liberals who have long ago abandoned the Word of God. In contemptuous fashion they throw this term at anyone who actually believes the Bible, and who sees it as being authoritative and trustworthy.

So Kevin again shakes his fist at God, spits on the Word of God, and uses twisted and distorted “logic” to defend the indefensible. The truth is, no one who carefully and honestly reads the Bible will find it coming out in support of the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual marriage. Only by completely massacring it can you even get close to doing that.

And once again it is the ploy of every scoundrel and Bible-basher to lift a verse out of context, use it as a weapon, then pat oneself on the back and think one has done a great job. Sorry bud, but it does not work that way. Every text without a context is a mere pretext, as the old saying goes. Indeed, every text without a context is a mere con.

Our theologian on the run should do one of two things here: either stop pretending to be a biblical Christian, or stop what he is doing and actually study the Word of God carefully and properly. Cherry-picking passages and pulling them out of context is the hallmark of every false prophet and sham teacher.

But it is hoped that in a few days time Kevin will have all the time in the world on his hands. If so, he can start by repenting of his hatred of God and his Word; and then start actually reading and studying the bible. At least we can pray to that end.

[964 words]

35 Replies to “Our Theologian-in-Chief Does It Again”

  1. I stopped reading when he mentioned Paul being a cruddy woman hater. If Paul were a woman hater and one who liked to silence women, then how come in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul had women followers like Junias and Lydia who had helped Paul a lot in his ministry by being mail carriers and such?

    Here is a cartoon video from a scholar (known as TektonTV Apologetics Ministry) who has disputed such bogus claims:

    Karina J Filipino

  2. I don’t understand what Krudd is trying to achieve by attacking the Christians that he attempted to woo in 07!!!
    I lay a lot of the blame on Australian Christian Lobby who in a heteroclite desire to appear bipartisan explained to the Australian Christian community that Kevin07 was a viable option. One didn’t need to be an amazing prognosticator to see that the ALP and Krudd were going to flip-flop on all these issues. I said in 07 that this would happen and told many people that Krudd was lying when he claimed to be a believer. And I don’t claim any gifting as a clairvoyant!!

    Joel van der Horst

  3. On the one hand, Kevin is obviously speaking lies.

    On the other hand, the truth is coming out about what he really believes and stands for, especially in relation to biblical Christianity, which is to say he rejects it more each day apparently.

    Rudd is scoffing at the scriptures and at God. There is now a clear line in the sand for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Many people will gleefully swallow his emboldened stance against the bible which now includes the topics of homosexuality, slavery and the value of women. What will be next, I wonder?

    We can be thankful to God that this is all on display for the nation to see before we vote – hopefully more and more Christians will begin to see that when Rudd says “get real”, he actually seems to mean “become secular humanist.”

    Simon Fox

  4. I forgot to mention how, as I was watching the video at the bottom of this article, and while listening to Kev speak, I got 10% dumber. Now I don’t know how to tie my shoe laces. :-p

    Joel van der Horst

  5. Krudd will say ANYTHING to get over the line… remember his Sorry Day?

    Jo Deller

  6. So Kevvie said “I know a bit about my New Testament”. Yes Kev, you do, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I suggest you become acquainted with more than a bit, then you might be able to expound it more accurately. (But by then it will be too late).

    John Bennett

  7. Kevin Rudd is a false prophet. He cannot be trusted and is trying to get votes from (feminist) women. He will not be getting mine. So much for trying to get votes from women. Anyway, this is irrelevant – he is a liar, scam, false prophet who dares to call himself a Christian. He needs to read his Bible before pretending to be someone who knows and understands it.

    Janice Tooh

  8. Kevin exposes himself again and it’s not pretty. Christ said you will know them buy their fruits, well ripping texts out of context or twisting the meaning of scripture is what atheists do. In fact I’m pretty sure I’ve heard secular humanists at times try to use the same texts as Rudd. It’s no small thing that a person of Rudd’s position and profession should misrepresent Gods word and intern misrepresent Gods character.

    Greg Sadler

  9. It’s funny that people don’t seem to think that children submitting to their parents, or employees to their employer, or a citizens to the police or military would reduce their inherent value as human beings.

    How emotive that whole idea of the wife submitting to her husband has become. And how tedious to listen to the ludicrous one-sided twisting of it. Kevin Rudd knows stuff-all about scripture, that is abundantly clear.

    Mark Rabich

  10. Well wriiten Bill. I am embarressed for Mr Rudd, embarressed that his local Pastor has not clued him up on this mistake and am embarressed for Mr Rudds family.
    People choose to be offended, and the word submissive can be taken more than one way. I recommend a book “Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood” by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. eg. Peter holds out one reward that wives are ordinarily to expect from this submission to their husbands: the unbelieving husband may be won to Christ. Another reward is to be daughters of Sarah, heirs to ALL the blessings of salvation. Above all, the greatest reward will be the combined joy of honouring God and recieving His favour.

    Johannes Archer

  11. Dear Bill, Kevin Rudd is a baptised Catholic. He obviously has no idea of the Catholic Church teaches or wants to know what the Bible actually teaches. So far as the Bible is concerned is an utter fool. Hopefully we are days away from seeing him defeated.
    Regards, Franklin Wood

  12. If King Kev said that if you believe the Bible you have to support slavery, it must mean that he does not believe the bible.

    Roger Marks

  13. Hey Franklin Wood, Krudd was a baptized Catholic but “swam the Thames” along time ago by joining the liberal faction of the Anglican Church. The Catholic Catechism and therefore the Magisterium teaches that one will not enter heaven solely by means of baptismal regeneration, but one must continue in the faith until the time of their natural death, through that faith that works by love.

    Joel van der Horst

  14. Make sure you write ‘No gay marriage’ or something similar on your ballot paper – such comments are taken note of by party scrutineers. They might get the message it is not a minority view.

    Nina Blondel

  15. Brilliant as usual Bill, this article sums my feelings up entirely. As a few previous comments have mentioned – Mr Rudd is sounding more and more like a secular humanist every day.

    James Brimblecombe

  16. His so called Biblical arguments are the kindergarten level arguments you get from atheists and clueless liberals who have no understanding at all about that which they criticise.

    I think we are very fortunate that Kev has come out of his closet so publicly. Up until now he could (almost) have been forgiven as just being a somewhat naive guy trying to navigate the difficult political moral minefield. Wavering Christian voters might still have given him the benefit of a doubt.

    Thankfully there is no longer even the slightest chance to misunderstand Mr Rudd. He is not a Christian and is condemned by his own words.

    Graham Jose

  17. Nina, doesn’t such an additional comment on your ballot paper make your vote invalid?
    If Mr. Rudd knew the God of the bible, he would understand the meaning of submission and that it is a voluntary and loving action based on the knowledge of the character of the one we submit to, to Christ first, based on his self sacrificial and unfailing love and as a wife to her husband who is asked to lay down his life for her. What is harder, to submit or to lay down your life for someone else?
    I wish he would do just what you said Bill and stop pretending to be a Christian. He may thereby extradite himself out of the net in which he is currently ensnared and which is drawing closer and closer around him with every lie he utters.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  18. Nina Blondel (and others here), do NOT write anything on your ballot paper apart from numbers in the boxes. Otherwise your vote will be spoiled, and counted as informal.

  19. Actually, I can think of many reasons for getting rid of the Sex Discrimination Act, but wives being submissive to their husbands is not one of them, because the Act does not regulate the behaviour of husbands and wives.
    But what is really disturbing is not the Prime Minister’s ignorance of the Bible, but his contention that it should be trumped by whatever is the latest trendy left-wing fashion.
    Malcolm Smith

  20. Come on, the good folk of commentaryland. You know what, Kevin Rudd is a really devout Anglican, but he needs to go to, say, Gosford Anglican Church to have his devoutness properly recognised.

    Got to zip.

    David Morrison

  21. The Discrimination Acts are are extremely dodgy, with the Sex Discrimination Act being the most dodgy. It fails to define what acts constitute sexual harassment, such that anyone can yell it out. It is left of discretion of the Commission, to decide out of context, whether an act constitutes sexual harassment. I do not condone lewd jokes, but a lewd joke does not necessarily constitute sexual harassment. If told in a way to the “enjoyment” or “pleasure” of the other person, it is in the legal sense, one that does not fall under the SDA.

    Janice Tooh

  22. Janice, it seems the intent of lewd joke, pleasure or enjoyment or not, even its lewdness or not, matters not a jot. If some money-sensitised harpy ‘feels’ it is lewd and ‘feels’ offended, it IS sexual harassment. Crikey she does not even have to have been the intended recipient of the intended enjoyment. If she sneaks up around the corner by the water-cooler to eavesdrop on a private conversation, she is still quite within her ‘rights’ to sue her employer and shareholders who were not even there.

    Chris Langan-Fox

  23. Well said, Bill et al.
    I’m also encouraged and challenged by Paul’s expansion on submitting:
    “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” Ephesians 5:21.

    Terry Darmody

  24. Mark I am not sure but I think in modern thinking children submitting to parents is a bit doubtful. Many years ago my nephew was amused about “rights” that they were told of in school.
    We need to pray for our politicians. Pray especially for those who are Christians not to compromise. And as Christians I hope we are telling them when they do something right not just when they err.
    Katherine Fishley

  25. Unfortunately, Mr Rudd has let the “cat out of the bag” that he is NOT a believer of the Bible. This is evident in that he claims to know his (yes, “my”) New Testament yet when he tries to explain something from it, it sounds hollow, contrived and irrelevant. May God bless him with correct views of his majesty by blessing the scriptures to his soul. Let us all pray for this.
    Hank Optland

  26. Perhaps the scariest thing about Rudd’s comment is his use of language straight from the progressive dictionary – no doubt coached by his American minders. To date this country has been spared the worst evils of the progressives. This is a sign that it won’t last.

    Graham Jose

  27. Bill,
    It appears that you CAN write on ballot papers, and I quote, “Don’t extra markings on a ballot paper invalidate my vote?… No, your vote will still be valid. The AEC has confirmed that you can write extra words on a ballot paper so long as you don’t obscure your numbered squares. Anthony Green, the ABC’s election commentator, has written: “Formality laws allow ballot papers to be counted even though they contain other markings, legible or otherwise. The only tests are that the markings do not obscure the formal marking of preferences…” “This is from a leaflet written and authorised by Denis McCormack and Paul Madigan, independent candidates for Flinders in the 2013 election.”
    If you think that political parties are not addressing matters of importance to you, this is one way of making them take notice. The precedent put forward on the leaflet was the Franklin Dam issue during the Tasmanian referendum of 1981, where 33% of voters wrote, ‘No Dams’ on their ballot paper. This spilled over to the 1982 federal election. Food for thought.
    Kind regards,
    Robert Greggery.

  28. Bill, as usual, a great and excellent researched article!

    Manfred Sollorz

  29. Robert reading your article after the fact and having been a worker for the electoral commission, I confirm that it is true that you might be able to get away with writing a slogan on the paper, provided all other aspects of the paper are in perfect order and the voter’s intentions are crystal clear. However the paper will still be placed into the spoiled papers pile to be cleared up later and in the case of a potentially biased scrutineer, why take the chance?
    Voting is a privilege and having grown up in a country where only a small fraction of the population was afforded it I became very cognisant of the responsibility. Don’t abuse your vote because if it is taken away the chances are you will never get it back again in your lifetime and that is not a pleasant experience I can assure you particularly when the government running your life is corrupt, inefficient, cruel or all of these things together.

    Mike Mcmeekan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: