The Little Roosters of Christendom

Sharing Options

Andrew Sandlin posted this on Facebook today.

“It might be known as “‘biblical’ patriarchy,” but if it demeans women, created in God’s image; if it treats strong women as threats rather than allies; if its default is to take the (male) church leadership’s side almost invariably in every dispute with women; if it believes that women in church are to be seen and not heard; if it blames rape and sexual abuse on immodest female clothing and insufficiently blames the real culprit: the lecherous hearts of sinful men; if it loves to inveigh against feminism but never gets around to fulminating against machismo; if it holds fathers responsible for their children but not equally their mothers; if it advocates Daddy-dominated “courtship” as God’s One Holy and Apostolic Way; if it is more interested in forgiving and rehabilitating adult male child abusers than in championing and healing female child abuse victims — there is nothing biblical about it, and it deserves to be rooted out of the church immediately, with extreme prejudice.”

Judging from the timing, from the content, and from the identity of a number of the folks who “liked” this small jeremiad, one is led to muse pensively, wondering if this paragraph is perhaps talking about oneself. Is this a coincidence? I trow not.Patriarchy Everywhere

Now on one level, entirely out of the context we are actually in, it is quite possible for me to simply say amen, and head on down the road whistling, hands in my pockets, and my hat on the side of my head. All the bad stuff he outlines is bad stuff I have been fighting for years.

And it really can be bad. There have been theonomic homeschool compounds where you might find everything he is talking about and more. Of course, in saying this, I hasten to add that the kind of theonomy involved was of the sort that didn’t obey any of God’s laws, and the homeschooling was the kind where very little schooling was done at home. There are many homeschoolers who love God and His Word, and I refer not to them.

But the move is to get people to think that I haven’t been doing that, and that I can be easily pigeon-holed as some kind of an Elijah One-Tooth patriarch, king of my little compound. One of the attempted lies of the Jezebel article was to link the ministry here with other discredited forms of patriarchy — although Laura Turner was kind enough to categorize me as quasi-urbane. I think that means that East Coast liberals think I might have upwards of three teeth. I only get invited to conferences, I think, because all three of those teeth are in the front.

So how do you go about rooting this kind of “biblical patriarchy” out of the church, doing so with “extreme prejudice”? Either you have to excommunicate the advocates of such positions (which would require naming them, incidentally), or you need to refute their positions, and shut them down that way, with clean arguments. The one thing you can’t do is excommunicate a straw man.

So speaking of straw men, let me provide some color commentary for this piece — a piece in which Andrew quite effectively kicks straw all over the barn. There is a lot of jumping around, so bold is Andrew. Blue represents sentiments I wrote today, while green identifies quotations taken from the shades of yesteryear.

“It might be known as “‘biblical’ patriarchy,” but if it demeans women, created in God’s image;”

Amen. Woman is the glory of man and demeaning your glory is oxymoronic. For more, here you go.

“if it treats strong women as threats rather than allies;”

This actually should read “strong righteous women” and not just “strong women.” Strong women can be as much of a nuisance as strong men are when they are untethered from the Word. But as for strong biblical women, a thousand amens. I know some of those.

“We need to narrow it down a bit. We don’t need “men” over “women,” and we don’t need “women” over “men.” We need a certain kind of man, and we need a certain kind of woman. Once you have them, the right relationships form.”

The rest is here.

“if its default is to take the (male) church leadership’s side almost invariably in every dispute with women;”

The default actually should be to take the side of the accused until the side which has the proof emerges. Every accusation requires two or three witnesses. Every accusation against (male) church leadership requires two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19). Strong biblical women understand this. Women who don’t understand it shouldn’t be teaching anything.

“if it believes that women in church are to be seen and not heard;”

This is an odd one. If Andrew is coming out in favor of women preaching, then he should say so. If he is not, then doesn’t that mean that he also believes that women should be “not heard”? And doesn’t that put him on the outs with all the feminists who are after me? Wait a minute . . . I’ve got it! Perhaps he thinks that there are many ways for biblical women to make important contributions to the life of the church, to “be heard” in other words, without preaching. But that’s what I think. Group hug!

Here is a link to my book Why Ministers Must be Men.

“if it blames rape and sexual abuse on immodest female clothing and insufficiently blames the real culprit: the lecherous hearts of sinful men;”

“Now lest I be misunderstood at this point — which I understand has happened before! — let me hasten to add that I am not seeking to minimize or excuse violent sexual behavior, or otherwise absolve rapists in any way. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

For more, click here.

“if it loves to inveigh against feminism but never gets around to fulminating against machismo;”

As tempting as it is to fulminate against Andrew’s foray into machismo here, I will simply pass that by. Anybody familiar with this blog, or with my books, knows that I have gone after the little roosters of Christendom for decades.  

“Fifth, when it is simply assumed that masculine leadership in true (feminine) worship must mean some sort of machismo, or swagger, or talking out of the side of your mouth, this is an assumption that runs clean contrary to what we have taught on this subject for many years.

For example, in Future Men, in a section entitled Counterfeit Masculinity, I say this:

“This can all be done in a loud voice, and with hairy chest, but it is still shirking a duty assigned by God” (p. 23).

“This false masculinity — excuse-making, bluster, braggadocio — is in part the result of resisting and opposing true masculinity” (p. 24).

For more, click here.

“if it holds fathers responsible for their children but not equally their mothers;”

“First, the instruction of your father and the law of your mother should be treated as a garland of grace for the head, and as an ornamental chain around the neck (Prov. 1:9).”

For more, go here.

The emphasis there was added so as to help people see it.

“if it advocates Daddy-dominated “courtship” as God’s One Holy and Apostolic Way;”

“So my purpose here is not to defend indefensible things, like courtships from Hell, or power-tripping fathers.”

For more, click here.

“if it is more interested in forgiving and rehabilitating adult male child abusers than in championing and healing female child abuse victims”

More interested? I am only interested in offering the grace of God in Christ to any who are repentant. The grace of God is for all, and all need it.

“The point is not to be a dog in a manger, or to agitate on behalf of repentant oppressors. We don’t want any of those who were wronged to be lost. We want to imitate God in His grace, which means being unwilling that any should perish.”

For more, go here.

That said, I am really interested to know if Andrew watched either of the videos I linked to yesterday. If not, why not? If he has, I would like to know if he believes that people who approve of such things should be giving advice to the church on sexual matters. If not, is he willing to withdraw his previous endorsements of such advice in the past? If so, would he be willing to say so?

“— there is nothing biblical about it, and it deserves to be rooted out of the church immediately, with extreme prejudice.”

And this is provides us, I would think, with a great opportunity. Andrew clearly believes this is a pressing issue. Andrew believes that this form of “biblical patriarchy” needs to be uprooted from the church, and all the appearances seem to indicate that he believes me to be a representative of this view. I have demonstrated above that I am not, but if Andrew continues to believe that I am, then I think the best thing we could do is organize a debate on the subject.

The invitation is hereby cordially extended.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago

…and the meltdown starts in 3….2….1

Gary
Gary
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

but but but… sexism!

Nord357
Nord357
6 years ago
Reply to  Gary

Now Gary (looks over the top of his reading glasses) If you are going to pretend to be a troll, at least wear a troll mask. ( lights his pipe and opens a beer)

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

I’ll gladly wear reading glasses if they come with a pipe and beer! :) Heck, I’ll even wear those dad slippers too.

Kevin Bratcher
6 years ago

That post from Sandlin…

Such straw men. Very righteous flailing. Wow.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
6 years ago

I think you’ve put this one to bed, Doug.
We need more advance & exploration from you now, and hope you don’t get bogged down playing defence.
Think Paul’s letters — critics were a launching pad to newly exposited territory.

Tim Paul
Tim Paul
6 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

No defense needed.

Laugh at their calamity.

Kinda like Barry.

We know his ultimate etetnal destruction will be a glorious time indeed.

ME
ME
6 years ago

Well said. I would love to see that debate.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

As another blogger put it: Patriarchy is civilization.

http://freenortherner.com/2014/07/20/patriarchy-civilization/

Like anything else, it needs to be redeemed by the Gospel. But it’s all too common to see arguments of the form “X is sometimes practiced sinfully, therefore we must reject X entirely”. Not an option in this case.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

X really is practiced sinfully, and the gamers who promote rage towards women in Christ’s name are one of the reasons patriarchy is so reviled in many circles.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

For example?

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

For example, much of the Christian manosphere is a train wreck of bloviated male pride and assorted sexual perversions that would convince just about anyone to throw the patriarchy out with the bathwater and just start over.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

That’s a vague accusation, not an example. I will join you in condemning a non-specific strawman blogger who says things that are wrong, if it makes you feel better.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Who cares how I feel? The point is there is a reason why people are so opposed to the what they perceive to be “patriarchy” and the little strutting roosters of the manosphere, like the one you just linked to, are a good example. The stereotypes and distortions one encounters at places like Jezebel are rooted in the stereotypes and distortions promoted by men obsessed with male dominance, not Godly masculinity. I could spend hours linking you to all the arguments that allege that scripture allows one to physically abuse their wife, that weaker vessel means mindless sexual receptacle, that… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

How is what I linked a good example?

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I’ve already answered that question. You’re not willing to hear me and I’m not willing to waste my time trying to show you.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

You didn’t give an example. You’ve got no substance, just bad feelings about this.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I have almost no feelings about this at all, just resignation about the foolishness of people.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

Who’s being foolish (besides yourself)?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

I don’t see where the manosphere and patriarchy, particularly biblical patriarchy, have anything to do with one another. The manosphere is all about refusing responsibility, not assuming it properly or otherwise.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

I agree with you, Dunsworth. Perhaps some of those ‘spherians will eventually catch on to the fact that with authority comes responsibility, but until they do, what they have doesn’t resemble biblical patriarchy at all.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

Then why did you bring it up in the context of biblical patriarchy?

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Sigh. This is a thread about two different perceptions of biblical patriarchy. In response ashv posted a link to the ‘sphere in which he says “patriarchy is civilization” and rejecting it is not an option. Wrong, If it isn’t biblical, rejecting it is an option.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

But the manosphere isn’t patriarchy, biblical or otherwise. It utterly rejects the idea of male responsibility or authority in any sense — it makes as much sense to call that patriarchy as to call a ham sandwich patriarchy. So I’m just not tracking with why you’re talking about the manosphere in this context.

Patriarchy doesn’t mean “men get to do whatever they want without further definition,” either etymologically, or in any sense in which people ordinarily use the word. So it’s just a misnomer to call the manosphere patriarchy, even “bad patriarchy.”

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

“But the manosphere isn’t patriarchy, biblical or otherwise..”

Okay, but when people hear the word “patriarchy”…they see the manosphere. So in that context Andrew Sandlin’s words make sense. I believe what Wilson is trying to do in this post is to clarify that there is a difference between biblical patriarchy and some of the cultural stereotypes and hyperbole about what is perceived to be “patriarchy.”

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Jane, where do I have to go to encounter the manosphere (of which I have only heard in the last three days)? Is this a Christian thing? Is it related to mansplaining and manspreading and other related offenses?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Jill, the manopshere is the community of affinity (mostly on the Internet, I think) of those holding sort of a feminist backlash philosophy. A lot of it is based around the deal that men cannot get a fair deal in a post-feminist society (as a result of divorce laws, and the overblown “rape culture,” and things like that), and therefore men should entirely look out for their own interests (material and sexual, mostly) in dealing with women and not act out of any sense of duty toward women, including women with whom they might choose to become intimately involved. It… Read more »

timothy
timothy
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

First, be careful, its manly; abandon all hope ye feminists who venture there.

Dalrock at https://dalrock.wordpress.com/ is a gentle intro.

Barnabas (not his evil-spock doppelganger) is a good source for information.

katie
katie
6 years ago

All of this is well and good, but WHY DO YOU HATE HOMESCHOOLERS??

Valerie (Kyriosity)
6 years ago
Reply to  katie

You’re joking, right?

katie
katie
6 years ago

Ha! I am.

Valerie (Kyriosity)
6 years ago
Reply to  katie

Oh, good! Whew! ;^p

timothy
timothy
6 years ago

Pastor Wilson.

In the last few months your example has taught us much. Thank you and I am praying for you.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Yes. I have been praying for him, too.

Valerie (Kyriosity)
6 years ago
Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago

… Puttin on the ritz! do-do-do do dooo dooo.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago

Indeed! :)

bethyada
6 years ago

I find all this discussion about Doug hating on the girls so odd (not so much from a godless-feminism perspective). I have read a lot of Doug’s material and find it a very high and very hard calling for fathers: Man up. Take responsibility. Your wife is difficult? well have you contributed to her responses by being an ungodly husband? You kids going off the rails? has your (lack of) expectations of them and your modelling been righteous? Sure he reminds us that none are up to the task, and we need God’s grace, but I don’t see him letting… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

I don’t think this notion comes from his teaching material, but rather from flippant or irritated remarks he makes in his blog posts. What I am going to say is only my impression and I may be miles off base. At times Doug has made me uncomfortable by the way he characterizes certain types of women. Just off the top of my head without wading through past posts, I remember remarks about small-breastedness (which can surely not be taken as symbolic of a woman’s spiritual attitudes in the way tattoos might be) vixens, waifs, nanny-types who want to impose vegetarianism… Read more »

bethyada
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Jill, some of it has to do with his love of metaphor. And some to do with our culture’s hyperliteral tendencies and denial of generalities or stereotypes. We talk of men having balls of steel meaning that they have courage. This is because courage is a masculine characteristic (though many women are courageous), one that men are expected to have. And testicles are an obvious sign of manhood, and masculinity should go with manhood. Steel is known for its hardness. Thus the phrase. It is so common we think little of it and I have even heard people talking about… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Still, since some women literally do have – and of course it’s relative – small breasts, using that as a metaphor for lacking in femininity is insulting. Men ought to get that. Men also ought to get that women are generally going to be sensitive to words in a way men generally are not, especially words that touch on their appearance. There is a rough good natured way men talk to each other that would be boorish if they were talking to a woman. Likewise, the type of metaphor that associates male anatomy and masculine character – and we all… Read more »

bethyada
6 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

John, some men have small testicles. I don’t really see the problem. Feminists have pushed for many questionable things, some have disparaged mothering and suggested that paid work is more honourable (though not always), they have advocated for abortion, they have advocated for promiscuity, they have backed the gay agenda. They swallow a gallon of sexual deviancy and object to an ounce of wit?

If they are going to demand to be treated like men do we allow them to swoon at lesser than their ancestors?

JohnM
JohnM
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

How do you know? That’s not something that is readily apparent the way petite breasts are. The bad things feminists have pushed for is beside the point. The women who may feel stung by a metaphor insinuating womanhood is proportional to bustline or that cup size is indicative of character are not necessarily feminists and are not necessarily demanding to be treated like men.

bethyada
6 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

John, of course some men have small testicles. Orchidometers are to measure their size. And while I don’t think we shouldn’t cause unnecessary insult, you are asking we wind back rhetoric in a cultural war because illiterate people are offended by what they misunderstand.

As to feminism, Doug would see it as a worldview that is, at its core, demonic. It offers nothing good that biblical femininity doesn’t already do better, and a lot that is just evil.

See my response to Jill.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

This is just too bad of you. I will never look at orchids the same way again.

bethyada
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

My apologies

:)

JohnM
JohnM
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

As I said, and as Jill explained at length, testicle size is not readily apparent to everyone who sees the man. Breast size is apparent to everyone who sees the woman. Furthermore, women are subjected to evaluation of their worth being based on physical appearance to a greater degree than men. As a man I see women overreacting to a lot of things, and reading into too many things, but I understand their sensitivity on this one. Again, the evils of feminism are beside the point. I don’t know that anyone supposes Doug was insinuating feminists have small breasts –… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

I have brooded about this off and on throughout the day, and although I find you very persuasive, I still have trouble with the small breasted metaphor. Because testicles are normally not seen by people other than spouses, it is a much more abstract concept. If I were to say about somebody, “He has no balls,” I am meaning it completely metaphorically because I am in no position to judge. The testicles have become completely symbolic for masculinity, and it would be a very rare person who understood such a comment as a negative appraisal of physically less endowed men.… Read more »

bethyada
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Hi Jill. It must be remembered that this is not directed at a particular woman, it is directed at a movement. Although Doug didn’t use the following figure of speech, what if he had portrayed feminism as a woman, much as wisdom and folly are portrayed as a woman? He could say that: Biblical femininity is a beautiful maiden sitting under a willow by the river and secular feminism (and her half-bred sister Christian feminism) are ugly spinsters chasing rats in the sewers. The point would be taken and yet we can argue that some females are just plain. This… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Jillybean mentioned refering to men as having no balls, wouldn’t the coralary be women with no breasts?
Dougs use of barbed language is a valid tactic and retorical device, but he occasionaly misses his mark what with being human and imperfect.

David Trounce
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Not to detract from your concerns, becuase I think your questioning is fai, but I uspect Doug is speaking this way to drive a firm wedge between feminism and feminity. The ideal and the abberaition.

Nat
Nat
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Would someone please offer up a cogent definition of “feminist” with which all agree . Without words that mean the same to all, we can’t communicate. Also, what is a “manosphere”?

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  Nat

We can’t even seem to agree on the definition of patriarchy. Feminists are even less inclined to understand their own ideology.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Nat

I completely agree with you on this. There are people who think supporting a woman’s right to vote is rampant feminism. There are feminists who think that all marriage is slavery and all intercourse is rape. There are people who are incapable of taking a nuanced position. I am a feminist on the first definition and anti-feminist on the second. I wish someone would undertake a good definition. Jane explained manosphere below; I had never heard of it before.

herewegokids
herewegokids
6 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

cool just like Doug Phillips, Josh Duggar, Jack Schaap, Mark Driscoll, that one guy at KC IHOP who may or may not have killed his wife, and Ted Haggard! i might be forgetting a few.

bethyada
6 years ago
Reply to  herewegokids

So what is Doug saying that is hating on women? Specifically.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago

I never make comments on FB, but I was tempted to write “You go, girl!” Sandlin taking one for the SJWs. Sad to see that.

Scott Cottrill
Scott Cottrill
6 years ago

It seems to me that Sandlin is engaging in piling on behavior, but comes late to the party and not really all that informed about the specific situation. Sounds more like an axe to grind on his part. Didn’t he fill in for a CREC pulpit some years back but wasn’t really all that tight with the theology? Maybe a little sour gapes, perhaps?

Josiah Woltersdorf
Josiah Woltersdorf
6 years ago

seen it a thousand times, just another pastor protecting his pride. What an ass you have made of yourself, Doug.

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago

Hmmm, you’re new here and we’re wondering why. Would you like some punch and cookies?

Josiah Woltersdorf
Josiah Woltersdorf
6 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby

He doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get the fact that it’s not what he’s saying. It’s what he’s doing. It’s how he’s saying it. It’s not that he’s said anything outright to make him “an Elijah One-Tooth patriarch, king of my little compound.” But it’s how tenaciously he’s defending his rights over that little compound. Read between the lines my friend. A brilliant mind, making an ass of himself and letting power run to his head. Like I’ve said, seen it before so many times. “Pride in the name of love.” And it’s a disease.

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago

No I think its the anti-intellectual sickness of this age that treats any explanation or defense of their actions a an attack on them, or as arrogant assertions.

1 part envy, 6 part Grima Wormtongue

Josiah Woltersdorf
Josiah Woltersdorf
6 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby

Anti-intellectual sickness? You serious right now? You ever thought that I’m a person (with a story) before you just yell “anti-intellectual” and call me some kind of conniving Wormtongue character? I respect Wilson as a pastor, but he totally needs to leave this delicate mental and psychological situation to professionals, and live in a little less silence over the entire situation. Now there is a family (and the “aggressor”) suffering from not only the aggression towards them but the publicity of a foolish pastor’s loose tongue. Have some empathy man. How would you like to be the family (or the… Read more »

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
6 years ago

Again Grima, why are you here? Or what took you so long to get here? It has taken months for Doug to get to this point, and each time he has only shared what he thought prudent and wise. He has stated many times he didn’t wan’t to talk about this publicly, but his accusers have opened the door time and time again with accusations and false testimony. Then when Doug talks about what is documented, and what has transpired we find people, like yourself, waltzing in here and challenging whether Doug has the intelligence to put his house keys… Read more »

Evan
Evan
6 years ago

Looks like the ranks of the Always Hateful have swelled. Welcome, you’ll find many of your people here.

Tom Thistleton
Tom Thistleton
6 years ago

Leadership is difficult. Implied in the definition is the idea of getting out in front to direct, persuade, encourage, woo, and bring people to a place where they otherwise wouldn’t have gone. As Christians, we acknowledge that we’re not just dealing with an intellectual argument but with a fallen sinful heart, making the leading all the more difficult. Add to that the reality that often those whom you’re trying to lead and others outside the flock (other pastors, unrelated believers, unbelievers, etc.) don’t want to go and will put up all kinds of resistance, even imputing evil motives to the… Read more »