UNHINGED: Foul ‘Bap­tist’ Arti­cle Makes Men­stru­a­tion the Rea­son for the Sea­son

Mary is the hero of her own sto­ry, of God’s sto­ry, and she gets sent to the cor­ner or just ignored entire­ly. This is the real “war” on Christ­mas — that we have not seen Mary in her own sto­ry.”

The Blood of Advent — Julia Goldie Day, Bap­tist News Glob­al, 11/27/23

Here at Ene­mies With­in the Church, we are used to cov­er­ing out­ra­geous rhetoric from the rad­i­cal left mas­querad­ing as bib­li­cal Chris­tian­i­ty. Typ­i­cal­ly, we uncov­er sto­ries about the ‘woke’ reveal­ing their hatred for ‘white’ men, dis­dain for bib­li­cal teach­ing, blas­phe­mous por­tray­als of God, and not-so-sub­tle dis­plays of rank cov­etous­ness. Yet in all the sto­ries we’ve writ­ten, very few con­tain all these ele­ments in a sin­gle sto­ry, all while mix­ing in imagery that is just… gross. In this regard, Bap­tist News Global’s Novem­ber 27 arti­cle stands on rare ground.

In said arti­cle, which is sup­pos­ably about the advent, Julia Goldie Day engages in what can only be char­ac­ter­ized as an unhinged dia­tribe deify­ing wom­an­hood while sput­ter­ing some of the most vile fem­i­nist dri­v­el ever con­ceived in a human heart. Worst of all: she does it in the name of Christ. Well, sort of, but we’ll get to that.

[Men­stru­a­tion] has come to be asso­ci­at­ed with sin­ful­ness. There is some­thing about the cre­at­ed order of woman that is “mis­be­got­ten,” that must be account­ed for with pow­er over by man. This fem­i­nine blood is taint­ed.

But we speak, read about, sing about the male blood of Jesus in church dur­ing Lent and East­er with­out bat­ting an eye, do we not? Why is that dif­fer­ent?

*empha­sis added

Boys Stink. Girls Rule.

The first promi­nent theme in Day’s arti­cle reads like a five year old girl on the play­ground argu­ing why girls are bet­ter than boys. This theme is sim­ply that men are bad.

There were sev­er­al exam­ples in the arti­cle, but let’s focus in on one of them. While speak­ing of the Vir­gin Birth of Jesus, Day pon­tif­i­cates, “Mary begets Jesus. I should hope so; Joseph did not con­tribute sperm. Men are used to get­ting all the cred­it.”

She talks about Mary “beget­ting” Jesus, as if she deserves the cred­it for cre­at­ing Him. Yet accord­ing to Luke 1:35, the Holy Spir­it direct­ly cre­at­ed Jesus in Mary’s womb, mak­ing God the cre­ator of His body, not Mary. And What was Mary’s response? “Behold the maid­ser­vant of the Lord! Let it be to me accord­ing to your word.”

She con­tin­ues by observ­ing that Joseph did not con­tribute to the con­cep­tion of Christ as if God’s intent was to insult men by exclud­ing a man from the cre­ation of Christ. Day ignores the obvi­ous fact that God ascribes mas­cu­line pro­nouns to Him­self, not to men­tion the fact that noth­ing in the first chap­ter of Luke men­tions any­thing about gen­der pow­er dynam­ics. To get around this, and dou­ble down on her posi­tion that a (or the) pur­pose of the advent is to estab­lish the supe­ri­or­i­ty of women, she sim­ply makes the Holy Spirt a woman.

In Luke’s Gospel, the angel says to Mary that she will con­ceive in her womb. The Holy Spir­it, she will come upon you and some­how cre­ative­ly act to make this be.”

*empha­sis added

Mak­ing the advent about gen­der is Julia Day’s twist­ed imag­i­na­tion being read into the bib­li­cal text for the pur­pose of set­ting up the ensu­ing insult, “men are used to get­ting all the cred­it.” In mak­ing this base­less accu­sa­tion, Day unwit­ting­ly dis­clos­es that she cov­ets men who “get cred­it,” because it both­ers her that they do. Her car­i­ca­ture of men is intend­ed to com­mu­ni­cate the assump­tion that men are arro­gant and pow­er hun­gry, which is, iron­i­cal­ly, an arro­gant asser­tion with a hunger for the pow­er she accus­es men of hoard­ing.

Being a Woman Gives you Mag­i­cal Insight

We’ll cov­er the men­stru­a­tion com­ments in the next sec­tion, but first, while most of Day’s arti­cle is misan­dris­tic non­sense, she does make one con­tention that I feel is worth a small bit of analy­sis to dis­man­tle.

Yet in our church pul­pits and our plat­forms we see most­ly men. When women do have a chance to lead in church­es, they are at a steep dis­ad­van­tage. And many women in the pews don’t even real­ize they have only heard the gospel from a male per­spec­tive for most of their lives because Mary stays hid­den away.”

*empha­sis added

Here Day is mak­ing the typ­i­cal ‘woke’ talk­ing point, that dis­par­i­ty equals dis­crim­i­na­tion. Day is so far removed from a bib­li­cal world­view (while iron­i­cal­ly ana­lyz­ing the Bible) that she can­not com­pre­hend the fact that God cre­at­ed men and women for dif­fer­ent pur­pos­es. Accord­ing to 1 Tim­o­thy 3, the office of pas­tor was reserved for only men because God cre­at­ed men to be the spir­i­tu­al lead­ers of fam­i­lies and com­mu­ni­ties. Say­ing that reserv­ing pas­toral min­istry for men is oppres­sive is as absurd as say­ing that women are oppress­ing men by being the only ones who get preg­nant, to the exclu­sion of all men (although shock­ing­ly, today the woke may very well make that argu­ment too). Just as there has nev­er been a preg­nant man, there can nev­er be a female pas­tor, because God has appoint­ed those eter­nal­ly impor­tant roles to their assigned sex­es.

Sec­ond­ly, Day con­tends that women only hear the gospel from the stand­point of a male, which is a “dis­ad­van­tage” of some kind. Implic­it in this state­ment is the notion that women have spe­cial insight into the gospel that men can­not access, and that with­out lis­ten­ing to women speak from a pul­pit, one will nev­er hear the full gospel. This requires that Day has a dif­fer­ent gospel than the one in the Bible. 1 Corinthi­ans 15 unam­bigu­ous­ly declares that the gospel is the mes­sage of Jesus’ life, death, bur­ial, and res­ur­rec­tion for the for­give­ness of sins. The mes­sage is the same, regard­less of the gen­der of the per­son speak­ing it. Day has a gnos­tic gospel, by which I mean that she sees women as hav­ing spe­cial, spir­i­tu­al knowl­edge that men do not. Con­trast Day’s ram­bling with the apos­tle John in 1 John 2:17: “But you all have been anoint­ed by the Holy One and you all have knowl­edge” (empha­sis mine).

New Life is Found in Peri­od Blood

I’m sor­ry you just read that, but it’s about to get a lot weird­er as we get to the heart of the mat­ter. Day’s arti­cle cul­mi­nates in what can only be described as an ode to men­stru­a­tion.

In fact, Jesus has a vul­va (vul­va is the cor­rect name for the anato­my com­mon­ly known as the vagi­na that con­tains the vagi­nal open­ing and the cli­toris) or oval shaped wound in his side from which he “bled” like women bleed as he hung from the Cross and died…

Blood is strength. Blood is pow­er. Poten­tial. New life. The womb and the blood that comes from it is dis­tinct­ly cre­ative.”

What out­ra­geous blas­phe­my! What kind of per­son would com­pare the wounds of Christ which redeemed His peo­ple to female gen­i­talia? Appar­ent­ly, Jesus’ wounds were oval shaped, and that this makes his wounds a “vul­va” because vul­vas are also oval shaped. By Day’s log­ic, foot­balls, avo­ca­dos, eye­balls, almonds, water­mel­ons, and the Seal of Guam are all vul­vas as well.

Silli­ness aside, Day’s absurd claim is for the pur­pose of try­ing to prove that women’s peri­od blood is divine anal­o­gous­ly to Jesus’ blood. For Day, “new life” is not found in Christ, but in “the womb and the blood that comes from it.” Hence her claims that “the real ‘war’ on Christ­mas — [is] that we have not seen Mary in her own sto­ry” and “we speak, read about, sing about the male blood of Jesus in church… Why is that dif­fer­ent [to dis­cussing men­stru­al blood]?” Although Day pos­es as a Chris­t­ian, in the end, she is exposed as an idol­a­tor who wor­ships the female flesh, pow­er, and her own per­spec­tives more than Christ.