The Little Roosters of Christendom

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.

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.