Poepol van die Week, dr. Jac ­Howell, predikant van die Gereformeerde Kerk Heidelberg in Gauteng

Standard

Hier is nog ‘n groot poepol, dr. Jac ­Howell, predikant van die Gereformeerde Kerk Heidelberg in Gauteng. Kan iemand asseblief hierdie drol laat weet hy het die geeerde prys gewen hierdie week. Tipies geloof en die kerke. Onderdruk vrouens en diskrimineer vreeslik teenoor andere. Soveel so dat hulle heentemal bereid is om hulle organisasie op te breek. Surprise surprise, nog ‘n drol met ‘n doktors graad in “toordokter spoke wetenskap”.

Dr. J. Howell
Pretoriusst. 12
Heidelberg
1438
Tel: 016 341 2354
Sel: 083 655 1538

http://www.gkheidelberg.co.za/index.html

‘Los kerk as jy meen vroue hoort in ampte’

2012-02-14 08:48

Neels Jackson

Keer terug na die gereformeerde verstaan van die Skrif sedert 1859 of sluit aan by ’n ander kerkverband.
Dis die raad van dr. Jac ­Howell, predikant van die Gereformeerde Kerk Heidelberg in Gauteng, aan van sy kollegas wat ten gunste is van die toelating van vroue tot die ampte van ouderling en diaken.
Howell skryf in ’n ope brief aan die Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika (GKSA) die gereformeerde Bybeluitleg soos dit sedert die stigting van kerkverband in 1859 aanvaar is, bepaal dat vroue nie predikante, ouderlinge of diakens mag wees nie.
Geleidelik het daar egter nuwe sieninge posgevat waarvolgens die omstandighede in Bybelse tye bepalend raak vir die uitleg van die tekste.
Dit lei volgens Howell onvermydelik en uiteindelik tot vrysinnigheid en relativisme in die teologie.
Hy meen diegene wat vroue tot die ampte wil toelaat, het hulle vasgeloop teen gereformeerde teoloë wat van hulle verskil het.
Toe moes hulle subtiel te werk gaan en hul strategie geleidelik deurvoer.
Hy gee toe diégene het indringende Bybeluitleg gedoen, maar sê dit het hulle by ander antwoorde uitgebring as die gereformeerde uitleg wat die Bybel en die Bybel alleen as bron van waarheid beskou.
As ’n mens dié Bybeluitleggers toets deur te vra of daar werklik ’n slang in die paradys was wat met Adam en Eva gepraat het, en hulle brandmerk jou as Biblisis, sal jy weet waar jy met hulle staan, sê Howell.
Hulle gaan ook ander antwoorde hê oor sake soos die maagdelike geboorte van Jesus, die evolusieleer, homoseksualiteit, verassing en sport op Sondae.
Howell vra of daar nie maar nou openlik erken moet word “dat ons onderskeie Skrifbeskouings wesenlik van mekaar verskil nie”.
Deur dit te erken, verketter hulle mekaar nie, maar is hulle ten minste eerlik met mekaar.
Verder wil hy weet of so ’n situasie houdbaar is binne een kerkverband.
Hy het geen twyfel nie dat die GKSA sal skeur as daar besluit word om vroue tot die ampte toe te laat.
Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Poepol van die Week, dr. Jac ­Howell, predikant van die Gereformeerde Kerk Heidelberg in Gauteng

  1. I think its wrong of you to judge this guy McBrolloks. From the expression on his face, I reckon he’s got a carrot up his arse. The poor guy is in pain and his wife, with a stare that would put a Merino to shame, is seemingly oblivious to her husband’s predicament.

    Like

  2. Luister, Brolloks, ou vuilgat beesblaas, bly liewer stil (of hou jou bek toe) oor sake waarvan jy niks weet nie. Jy vergat jou eie naam (wat alreeds erg vergat is) nog meer, wanneer jy vloek en skel oor kerksake waaroor jy nie eers die geringste kennis en kundigheid oor beskik nie. Jy is nie eers ‘n gelowige nie, maar ‘n heiden, dus hoe op deeske aarde kan jy enige kommentaar lewer?! Dis duidelik wie die kuttel is die proses is…

    Like

    • Marnus Coetzee, ek wys maar net uit hoe julle gristinne teen ander mense diskrinineer agv julle bronstydperk dogma. Julle het lekker in die apartheid dae van julle preekstoele af gepreek dat julle julle god se verkore volk is en dat julle maar die swartetjies mag opfok want dit is julle gotte se wil. Nou wil julle nog steeds julle eie vrouens onderdruk deur te se dit is hoe god se woord verstaan word onder julle 1891’se vertolking. Julle is pateties. Ek kan sien dat julle de moer in raak as iemand julle kritiseer. Wat dink julle eie vrouens daarvan? Julle dogters en kleindogters? Julle gee eintelik nie om nie, want julle lieg maar lekker vir jesus en vertel vir hulle dit is julle spoke se wil. Fok maar voort, maar moenie verbaas wees as julle gemeente kleiner en kleiner word nie. Totdat daar eendag net ‘n klomp ou verkrampte mans daar sit wat glo die duiwel is besig om te wen nie. Arme mense, julle is siek in julle breine en julle besef dit nie eers nie.

      Like

  3. Ou Marnus, is jy ook ‘n dopper. In my jong dae op Potchefstroom was die doppers die voornaaiers en -drinkers. Dit was OK, maar jy mag net nie gedans het nie; daai sonde sal nooit vergewe word nie.

    Ek wonder waarin Howell sy doktorsgraad gekry het; seker draadtrek kunde. Of ‘n ander weergawe van hopscotch soos waarin oorle Connie Mulder (al die doppers se held) sy M.A. in gekry het.

    Like

  4. Inderdaad – die grootse #@*l!!! Want wie is hy om te praat oor die verhouding met my Skepper – is dit nie tussen my en God nie??? Wie dink Hy is hy – JAC Howell om dit vir my te se????? – God? Nee jammer dit is tussen my en my Skepper- nie tussen my en JAC Howell nie!!!

    Like

  5. Ek kan nie uitvind of jy vir of teen God is, met die comment van jou nie. Seker nie eersgenoemde nie, né? Meeste ouens wie se verhouding met God reg is, sal nie so opgewerk word hieroor soos jy nie.

    Like

    • Goed om te ssien dat jy nog soms hier kom inloer, ek wag maar geduldig dat een van die ouens ‘n lig puntjie in hul donker doolhof sien, eers het hulle hul eie konsep en hul koppe gevorm, soos die goue kalf wat die Isrealies gebou het en nou dink hulle dat elke mens het soortgelyke gesnedebeelde of vergelykings in hul eie “koppe” en probeer hulle die ouens “hervorm”.

      Like

  6. DIE POEPOL GAAN SEKER VERNEDER VOEL AS N VROU BETER AS HY KAN PREEK,EK DOG DIS NOG NET MUSLIMS WAT VROUE NIKS TOELAAT NIE,NEE MAN JAC DIT IS 21STE EEU,JY LEEF NOG IN VOORTEKKERS

    Like

  7. Ernst

    Dis onnodig. Ek aanvaar dat as iemand kritiek oor die kerk lewer hy ‘n Christen is en dit doen om die Kerk op te bou. Een van die belangrikste lesse wat die Bybel ons leer is dat jy nie mag oordeel nie. Die man wat sulke swak taal en woorde gebruik beswadder homself. Mens wil nie oordeel nie maar kan nie help om warm onder die kraag te word as iemand die Kerk en ‘n leraar (wat kundig oor die Woord en wat daarin staan) aanval en wil slegmaak nie. Dit is duidelik dat hierdie mense wat sulke woorde na ‘n leraar slinger self nie die kennis van die Skrif het nie. Dit is skokkend dat mense so kan uitvaar teen ‘n bedienaar van die Woord. mag julle vergewe word en mag die Lig vir julle opgaan en dat julle tot inkeer mag kom. Ek is self nie sonder foute nie maar sal my plig as Christen versuim as ek julle nie vermaan en opkom vir die Kerk en sy bedienaars nie,

    Ter loops ek ondersteun die predikant ten volle en daag enige een uit om daaroor te debateer. gebruik net asseblief die Skrif as verwysing vir enige redenasies en aantuigings. Sulke korrespondensie vir julle ook tot nut wees want jy sal die Bybel moet lees en dit sal lig in jou donker lewe laat skyn.

    Dit is verstommend dat die kerk vir soveel eeue bestaan sonder dat hierdie sake ooit ‘n problem was. Dit word tog steeds op dieselfde Bybel gegrond. Wat maak die mens van vandag so spesiaal dat hy skielik die Bybel anders verstaan?

    Ek veroordeel nie ander kerke/denominasies nie, maar indien iemand iets in die Gereformeerde Kerk wil verander omdat dit hom nie meer pas nie kan hy in liefde na ‘n ander “kerk” gaan waar hy tuis sal voel en waar hulle hom kan akkommodeer. Indien die Geref. Kerk verander word, het ek en baie ander lidmate geen heenkome nie. Dis die enigste kerk wat nog vir my en my oortuigings (volgens die Skrif) behoudend is en waar ek tuis voel.

    Elkeen moet maar hand in eie boesem steek en dit aan die Woord van God meet voordat daar uitlatings oor ander gemaak word.

    Like

    • Ernst, as jy dalk wonder hoekom julle godsdiens en julle kerke minder en minder mag het in die laaste 200+ jaar,

      Die rede is omdat mense meer belang stel in vordering en hulle mense regte as om in julle kak te glo.

      Julle kerke het nog altyd in vordering se pad gestaan.

      Die mense het julle mag weg gevat sodat hulle beter lewens kon lei. Kyk hoe het ons gevorder in hierdie kort tydperk alleen vandat julle nie meer vir ons vertel wat ons moet doen volgens julle gotte se wil nie.

      Ongelukkig is julle altyd besig met een of ander dom plan om ons weer in die elende van die donker eeue in te probeer dompel.

      Ons sal maar vir die wereld wys hoe julle op almal se mense regte piss waar julle enige tipe mag het.

      Like

    • Ek wonder of mense soos Ernst ooit al iets gelees het soos McBrolloks se antwoord. Hy en sy mede godbots verskyn gereeld hier en verdwyn dan sonder om die ateïste te antwoord nadat uitgewys word hoe euwel hulle voorate was wat liewe Jesus gevolg het. En dat as hulle magte nie weggevat was soos McBrolloks tereg sê, ons almal op die brandstapels gesterf het. Dit moet verskriklik wees om so blind soos ‘n godbot deur die lewe te gaan.

      Like

          • If I were a godbot (I mean if I really believed) I am sure I could respond with better arguments to defend my gods than the brain-dead lot who occasionally participate here. On the other hand I fail to see how any god needs defending; if you had to depend on these lot, rather keep quiet.

            Like

            • A woman I know wrote to Casper de Vries as follows: “My got laat hom nie beledig nie. Casper, jou satan, jy sal kry wat jou toekom.” I see this particular woman occasionally in these parts but avoid eye contact because it’s like looking at Medusa, it can turn you into stone. Face like a hatchet and a voice with the irritating pitch of an angle grinder. Uitgedroogde ounooi. Nog nooit in haar lewe lekker gepomp nie.

              Like

            • Very good point Savage. I often wonder why the gotte employ dumb people to defend them. One would expect the opposite. Or even better – why not pay a visit once a year and inform your creation what you expect of them?Something along the lines of a State of the nation address. …….and simultaneously confirmation of your existence – especially to the newborns. I.e. a straightforward PR job .

              But no, the omnipotent gotte chooses to lurk in the shadows of dusty book, conveniently using the excuse that us dumb earthlings are too stupid to fully comprehend this mundane selection of first-century drivel. The real miracle is the fact that people still believe this shit while having cheap access to the truth.

              Like

  8. Ernstig,

    As ‘n ding glad nie bestaan nie, mag ek maar se die ding is ‘n poes?

    Ok? Goed, Jou got is ‘n poes. Jou jesus is ‘n poes. Jou engeltjies is almal poese.

    Jou duiwel is ‘n poes .

    Totsiens

    Like

  9. Ernest, jy skryf:

    “Dit is verstommend dat die kerk vir soveel eeue bestaan sonder dat hierdie sake ooit ‘n problem was. Dit word tog steeds op dieselfde Bybel gegrond. Wat maak die mens van vandag so spesiaal dat hy skielik die Bybel anders verstaan?”

    Jou kerke het mense vermoor, by die honderde duisende, wat hulle gotte en hulle kerke en hulle leiers gekritiseer het, of wat in ander gotte geglo het.

    Die bloed wat deur jou gristen kerke gestort is in die laaste 2 duisend jaar, in die naam van julle jesus is letterlik in die miljoene.

    Mense soos jy volg blindelings met wapen in die hand as ‘n aap met ‘n bybel onder die arm vir julle vertel julle gotte wil dit. Dan maak julle met ‘n gejubbel alles in julle pad dood totdat julle of met geweld gestop word, of julle leiers se planne verander.

    Jy is letterlik ‘n skaap.

    Julle godsdiens leiers is wolwe wat julle gebruik en op mense soos jy teer.

    Jy kan duidelik nie basiese mense regte verstaan nie. Jy glo mos vrouens hoort stjoep stil in die kombuis en die man is die baas, en basta. Julle sleep selfs julle liewe jesus in al hierdie argumente in.

    Onthou jy apartheid? Julle liewe jesus het mos vir julle vertel julle mag die barbare onderdruk en soos diere behandel. Wat het hier gebeur? Het jesus van plan verander? Nou moet julle mos mense van alle kleure aanvaar en in julle kerke inlaat, of hoe?

    Lekker op jou kniee lewe en jou wolf skaapwagter dien, om hulle vet en ryk te maak. Jammer jy kan nie mense regte verstaan nie. Julle gotte ook nie.

    Julle ouens is baie gevaarlik en baie dom. Mense soos ek en ander ongelkowiges het julle mag waggevat. Dit het 2 duisend jaar geneem, en baie bloed en geweld, maar nou lag ons net vir julle malletjies en julle bullshit geloof.

    Welkom in die 21ste eeu in die vrye wereld!

    Like

  10. This article from the latest issue of The Spectator sheds light on why many women didn’t even want the vote, let alone take up leadership positions in the churches. If they do feel obliged to cast their vote, most of them will vote for whoever their husband says they should.

    Did most women want the vote?

    Perhaps not – it was the suffragettes’ female opponents who asked for a referendum to check. But it’s easier for us to forget that

    One way or another, we’re going to be seeing quite a lot of Helena Bonham Carter and Carey Mulligan in ankle-length coats with pale faces this season. They’re in the film Suffragette, which has been shooting in the House of Commons in recent weeks.

    The suffrage campaign was not only successful, it was successful to the extent that any other course now seems a bit preposterous. But what’s rarely mentioned is that the bulk of the resistance to it was from other women. It’s quite easy to visualise the suffrage campaign in terms of men vs women and that’s obviously the focus of the film. But the fact is, lots of women campaigned against being given the vote on the basis that it was unwomanly. Not contemptible or particularly downtrodden women either, but vigorous individuals at the forefront of other campaigns for improving the condition of women and higher education for girls — women like Mary Ward, a founder of Somerville College, and Marie Corelli, the novelist. Many of them were keen on female involvement in local government.

    It’s quite possible, though impossible to prove, that the majority of women were actually against being granted the vote. Gladstone intimated as much in 1892 when he wrote that ‘there is on the part of large numbers of women who have considered the matter for themselves, the most positive objection and strong disapprobation. Is it not clear to every unbiased mind that before forcing on them what they conceive to be a fundamental change in their whole social function, that is to say in their Providential calling, at least it should be ascertained that the womanly mind of the country is… set upon securing it?’

    Right up to the first world war, it’s perfectly likely that most women didn’t actually want the vote. There was similar anti-suffrage sentiment in the US.

    There have been two very good studies of the subject — Brian Harrison’s Separate Spheres (1978) and Julia Bush’s Women Against the Vote (2007). Both do justice to the sincerity of the female anti-suffragists and the extent of their support.

    One reason why we don’t know whether women wanted the vote was the reluctance of suffragettes to ask them. The anti-suffrage leagues were keen on a referendum to determine women’s views, though there wasn’t consensus about who should vote in it; in Asquith’s cabinet the notion was discussed around 1911. The referendum issue surfaced throughout the debates: the chief anti-suffrage league declared that an important reform shouldn’t be introduced without a mandate.

    In 1917 Mary Ward suggested radical local government reform which would supply ‘a large body of women electors from whom a referendum on the subject of the Parliamentary suffrage could be taken’. The suggestion wasn’t taken up lest, presumably, it come up with the wrong answer.

    But what we do know is that women constituted the majority of the anti-suffrage movement, at least the rank and file. They made up more than two thirds of the subscribers to the anti-suffragist central office and five out of six subscribers at branch level. They made up, and collected, the half-million signatures against votes for women just before the first world war. This was grassroots stuff.

    Obviously the question for us is why women would set themselves against their own interests… at least, as we’d see it. As the first big petition by women against the suffrage put it in 1889, ‘We protest against [women’s] admission to direct power in that State which rests upon force — the State in its administrative, military and financial aspects.’ In other words, women should be involved in politics relating to their own experience.

    Some distrusted and disliked party politics; some felt that women would end up being manipulated by male politicians; others that women were so bound up with their real and fundamental work in the family that they didn’t have the expertise to vote properly on imperial matters; many felt that women had their proper and vital areas of expertise in the domestic sphere from which party politics would be a damaging distraction.

    Others thought the vote was the thin end of the wedge undermining marriage and family. Lots were imperialists — and as a male anti-suffragist observed, what would India make of a Britain partly governed by women? But what you find, too, was a discernible resentment among some women at being bossed around by middle-class militant suffragettes. One polemicist who described herself simply as ‘a working woman’ wrote in 1910 about ‘these dangerous women, the unemployed rich, who by example and preaching are teaching their humbler sisters that housework is despicable… between us and them, there is a great gulf fixed… by poverty… As they stand in our doorways with their pretty skirts gathered round them, are they not shrinking from the unsavouriness within?’ If you can imagine the suffragettes of a century ago less as the agreeable Pankhurst and more as the Edwardian equivalent of Harriet Harman, you can get her drift.

    History is never kind to the losers, but it would be wrong if the commemorations simply obliterated the ones in this fight — the silent, or at least less vocal, majority. The antis’ fight against the vote puts contemporary angst about getting equal numbers of men and women into frontline politics and boardrooms into perspective. A century ago women would simply have said they had other, better things to do. And perhaps they did.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9201871/did-most-women-want-the-vote/

    Like

    • Mind you, this doesn’t necessarily explain why conservative Afrikaans women prefer to be so downtrodden. Every Afrikaans speaker has a percentage of black blood, and in the case of the evangelical Afrikaner dedicated to spreading the sperm as well as the faith, the percentage must be quite a lot higher than average.

      That’s why these Gereformeerdes have a similar outlook to that of Jacob Zuma: “When I was in Venda recently, I was so impressed to see how people there express respect for other people. A woman would clap her hands and even lie down to show respect. If I was not already married to my wives, I would go to Venda to look for a woman.”

      Zuma is rumoured to be lining up another wife before the end of the year, so he might find himself an in-law to Julius Malema, who is a Venda.

      Like

      • “Every Afrikaans speaker has a percentage of black blood” ……..

        ????????????????????!!!!!

        Smelly,

        Jy praat die grootste klomp kak wat ek nog ooit gehoor het. Wat de fok gaan aan in daardie brein….? van jou.

        Like

        • Are we all ‘coloured’?

          Max du Preez

          We really need to find new terminology for the different population groups in South Africa, especially now that we’re moving back into a political culture of obsession with race.

          Problem One: if “coloured” means people of mixed blood, then the vast majority of people born in South Africa are coloureds, myself included.

          Studies in the 1980s have found that white Afrikaners have an average of seven percent “black” blood, mostly because of early relationships and marriages between white settlers and slaves or Khoisan. Some Afrikaners, like my family, have considerably more than seven percent black blood.

          This is also true of black South Africans. Three quick examples: ANC veteran Walter Sisulu’s father was a white man; Winnie Mandela’s mother had light skin, blue eyes and long hair and her mother-in-law called her a mlungu; Nelson Mandela’s mitochondrial DNA was found to be pure Khoisan. There were many runaway slaves from the East Indies and European shipwreck survivors in the 16th, 17th and 18th century who became part of the Zulu and Xhosa peoples.

          Problem Two: Probably a majority of people classified “coloured” during the apartheid years were descendants of the Khoikhoi and the San or Bushmen, with, of course, some white, slave and black blood. But when the ANC and other so-called Africanists refer to “Africans”, they exclude these people.

          This is sheer madness: the descendants of the first peoples of southern Africa are excluded from the term African? The Khoisan were here thousands of years before the first black farming groups arrived from further north. They are the original Africans.

          Problem Three: Most South Africans who love their country and are proud of our nation and our democracy declare themselves to be Africans. It is a term that has become associated with citizens who regard themselves as indigenous, as part of the whole nation, as part of the African continent.

          So when the ANC and others refer to black South Africans as Africans, they exclude coloured, white and Indian South Africans from calling themselves Africans.

          I have proclaimed for decades in columns and elsewhere that I see myself as an African, as indigenous to South Africa and Africa, and that I associate myself with the peoples, cultures and problems of the African continent.

          If the ANC says I’m not African, then what does that make me? I’m certainly not a European.

          Let me explain this problem by telling you of my daughter. Her father is a mixture of French Huguenot, German and Dutch settlers of the 17th century, slaves from Indonesia and Sri Lanka and at least one Khoi woman, Pietronella, daughter of Krotoa and materfamilias of the Saayman clan. I had my DNA tested at the National Health Laboratory. They tell me from my father’s side I’m in the E1b1b1c1 haplogroup – 23% of Ethiopians belong to this small genetic group.

          My daughter’s mother is a mixture of early Chinese/Indian Mauritian immigrants to the Eastern Cape, Afrikaners and Scots from Kenya.

          Do you really want me to tell my child she is European?

          Problem Four: are coloureds and Indian South Africans not also black? So if we can’t call “black” black people black, what should we call them? I see Professor Jonathan Jansen is calling them “racial Africans”. Is that the way to go?

          Decades ago ethnologists called “black” black people Bantu-speakers, because they all come from one language family who have spread all over sub-Saharan Africa. And then the apartheid racists started using the word Bantu in a derogatory way and now it is just unacceptable. Or should we rehabilitate the word?

          Even better: let’s all try very hard to move away from this renewed obsession with race and we won’t need the terminology.

          http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduPreez/Are-we-all-coloured-20110309

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s