Feminists of every stripe want to dispatch the patriarchy. Some of them want to smash it, while others would probably be content if it would just go away quietly. Now in this world of ours, the word patriarchy happens to be an all-encompassing term. Anything that preserves the scriptural understanding of a divine imprimatur on sex roles is the enemy, along with various distortions of the scriptural understanding. They are the enemy too. Orthodoxy, along with various free-riding heresies, are all the enemy.
And that means that the self-confessed patriarchs of hard right homeschooling world would be included. The softest of the soft complementarians are included. The exasperated men of the Men Going Their Own Way movement are included. And in addition to the activist men on the MGTOW picket line, I would also include all the men who have gone on strike in other passive and less noticeable ways.
The feminists are opposed to toxic masculinity, which actually means that masculinity itself is the enemy—in the feminist lexicon masculinity is toxic even in trace elements. This includes the flamboyant offenses of the patriarchs who don’t want their women to get any more of an education than will enable them to read the instructions on the side of a biscuit box, and extends all the way down to the micro-aggressions of the soft complementarians who were trying to stand up to the feminists by flattering them incessantly.
Now it must be said the feminists take equal delight in coming up against the hard right of the patriarchy and the soft left of the patriarchy. On the one end we have Elias One-Tooth, presiding over his compound filled with adoring females, and on the other we have Caspar Milquetoast, presiding over his next qualified apology. Feminists love the hard right because they are such an easy target. They love the soft left because they are so easy to steer.
And of course things have gotten so muddled that if Caspar starts to grow a backbone, he can be accused of wanting to join forces with Elias. And if Elias starts to have second thoughts about some of his more outlandish idiocies, he can quite handily be accused to kowtowing to feminism.
So what shall we call the biblical position? With regard to the heart of the issue, if we limit ourselves to the denotations, to the dictionary definitions, biblical Christianity is most certainly part of the patriarchy that the feminists want to smash. Not only so, but the apostle Paul is their chief villain. We must therefore do nothing that even looks like we are inching away from our commitment to whatever the Scriptures teach us on this subject.
At the same time, words like patriarchy do have accumulated cultural connotations, and those connotations are not simply manufactured by the feminists. In other words, biblical practice is caricatured by the feminists, sure enough, but there are more than a few self-professed advocates of the biblical understanding who do their level best to live out the caricature.
So this means that when you come across some rabid feminist online who was brought up in a prairie muffin jumper, and who had her hair in a bun for a couple decades, but who is now a lesbian queer theorist, we have to keep in mind the fact that when she attacks the patriarchy as an absurdity, she is quite possibly doing so as someone who grew up in the middle of such absurdity, frequently presented to her on a daily basis and in technicolor. In other words, she is not necessarily hallucinating. What she is rejecting is actually out there.
Now some women have abandoned their conservative upbringing out of simple rebellion, and they justify that rebellion by lying about how they were brought up. Women are sinners also, and are capable of rationalizing their sin just like other people. But other women are not lying about anything—they grew up among genuine weirdos, and their taunts have actual targets. Their mistake is that they (too conveniently perhaps) ascribe the errors they have known personally to absolutely everyone who ascribes to the label they reject. She grew up with her mother browbeaten and harassed by her jerk of a father, the kind who would use Ephesians 5 as a club, and so she simply asserts that any married couple that seeks to live out Ephesians 5 must be doing exactly the same thing her parents did.
But of course, stupid people don’t disprove the existence of wise people. Hateful men don’t prove that loving men are a chimera. Demented and disobedient family structures in the name of Pauline rigor do not exclude sacrificial and loving family structures that display true Pauline rigor. Counterfeit money does not demonstrate that genuine currency does not exist. The reverse is true actually. Nobody counterfeits brown paper Safeway bags. They do counterfeit something that has genuine value. It is true, as the gent once put it, that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
Now even when we factor these various distortions in, it needs to be stated in the strongest possible way that the caricatured cartoons of authority and submission in marriage do exist in reality. I have seen it. I have seen plenty of it. There are men who think that Paul gave them license to be selfish pigs.
Now, with that said, a couple weeks ago, I posted 21 theses on submission in marriage. This generated some comment.
When an unedifying discussion broke out in my comments (currently at 408) on whether it was appropriate for a husband to enforce submission by means of corporal punishment, I took it as my responsibility to write another post on that.
In the meantime, my original 21 theses had apparently been responded to here, which I just now read in the writing of this post, and I am afraid my response to the corporal punishment aficionados was taken as an assertion on my part that any disagreement with me from my right must be coming from wife beaters. Such poisoning the well would be a bad thing, and so for any readers who were disappointed in what they considered charitably to be uncharacteristic squid ink, please know that I did not do this thing. I was not responding to any possible conservative critic in that second post. I was responding a particular problem in my own comment thread.
So just a quick couple notes on some blunders in the Dalrock thread. My example of Merlin kneeling before Ransom was obviously not an example of homoeroticism, but rather was Lewis reinforcing his point that the entire universe is hierarchical, all the way up and all the way down. That hierarchy runs through the relationship of the sexes, but it is not limited to it, or by it. The counterpart clinch between Frost and Wither could easily have had homoerotic elements, given the devouring nature of all perversions, but even so the lusts involved there would have gone well beyond that.
There was also a jab at my ignorance of things Lewis. A correspondent said that “Lewis’s phrase ‘erotic necessity’ is not from That Hideous Strength . . .” My defense, such as it is, would be as follows:
“You do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love through lack of obedience . . . No one has ever told you that obedience—humility—is an erotic necessity” (That Hideous Strength, p. 148).
But on to the weightier matters, areas where I would have a more substantive difference with the Dalrockians. I do not maintain that a husband has responsibility but no authority. Of course he is to lead his wife (Eph. 5:27). He is to teach her, washing her with the water of the word (Eph. 5:26). He is to love her sacrificially (Eph. 5:25). If she is not there, he is responsible to get her there, and he has the authority from God Himself to accomplish it. This is an authority that commissions and equips him in the task. But please note the italicized phrase: “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). The comments I was interacting in my post on wife-beating were with men who were functioning according to ignorance, which is not what Peter said.
And so this brings us to what I would call the position I am arguing for. The Pauline name for it would be headship. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). I freely acknowledge that I am part of the patriarchy that feminists want to smash—but I also acknowledge that there are aspects of the patriarchy that God wants to smash also. Now what? But He does not want to smash the words inspired by His Holy Spirit, given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. His work in that department is to smash the selfishness of men and the rebelliousness of women in such a way as to make it possible for two sinners to live together in harmony. And that is what He does in all biblical marriages.
Whatever is meant by the phrase in Genesis “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” the following rough-hewn phrase, “and he shall rule over thee” is unambiguous. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16). This is part of the curse, and so it is lawful for us to labor to ameliorate the effects of the curse—but only in Christ. Every attempt to undo it in other ways (outside of Christ) will result in nothing but carnal sorrow for everyone involved. But in Christ, the rough aspect of the man’s rule is ameliorated, but make no mistake. The headship of the man over the woman is not softened, but rather strengthened. This point could easily be misrepresented, so I will have to ask my critics to refrain until I get to a fuller treatment of it. Or at least keep misrepresentations to a minimum . . .
In the meantime:
“Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them” (Eze. 13:17).
The cultural Prime Directive these days seems to be that people can choose whatever arrangement they like, label it a “lifestyle,” and everything’s okay after that.
So, why not rabid patriarchy with a harem comprised of a bunch of 16-year old cousins in a Unabomber shack?
Just asking.
I think the answer would be somewhere along the lines of “We can tell you what to do, but you can’t tell us what to do. ”
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3uo4n7
In most states, the 16 year olds are underage so that’s a problem. If you change your hypo so that the cousins are all adults, and you’re not abusing any offspring that result, then I’m not sure you would run into any legal problems. (I’m assuming you’re not actually emulating the Unabomber by manufacturing and mailing bombs to people, and that you merely meant a shack in the woods away from civilization.) Feminism holds that women are allowed to make choices, including the choice to be part of patriarchal institutions if that’s what they want to do. They just don’t… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Feminism holds that women are allowed to make choices, including the choice to be part of patriarchal institutions if that’s what they want to do. They just don’t get to make that choice for other women, who may prefer to do something else with their lives. But Krychek_2 is a materialistic determinist who believes that choice is an illusion. Wouldn’t it be interesting to watch Krychek_2 try to disabuse feminists of their illusions? I’m sure that would go over like a dead skunk. Notice, once again, that all Krychek_2 has done is describe what is. He doesn’t have… Read more »
Katecho, if believing that helps alleviate your insecurities about the viability of your own world view, I hope you feel better.
Ad hominem dismissal isn’t a viable response when there are structural inconsistencies with Krychek-2’s materialism.
For example, suppose that I was insecure about my worldview, as Krychek-2 imagines. What follows? In materialism, nothing follows. It’s just the way some speck of matter fell out of the accidental debris field. Security isn’t an end goal. There are no goals.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Katecho, your insistence on talking about my world view isn’t to convince me or anyone else here. It’s meant to convince you. You who harbor deep and troubling doubts that I might be right after all. As a former Christian who went through those same doubts, I well recognize the manifestations. Heck, at one time I would have written the very posts you write now. People who are secure in their own beliefs don’t need to continually harp about it. As with the deeply closeted homosexual who publicly is a vicious and outspoken… Read more »
I never did like this line of thinking. Harping on a valid and unanswered point is not indicative of similar closeted moral failings. I call BS and playground politics.
Steve, if I hadn’t already responded to it multiple times you might have a point, but I did. And previous experience has shown that no matter how many times I respond to it, Katecho will simply keep saying I haven’t. So at this point I’m no longer bothering. It’s all in the archives if you want to track it down. The other thing is while I am an atheist, I only talk about it when it’s directly relevant to something we’re having a conversation about, and I make no effort to convert those who are not atheists. That’s because I’m… Read more »
Well,at least he has reaffirmed what I already know. Outside the context of faith, there really is no moral or legal argument against the guy who wants “a harem comprised of a bunch of 16-year old cousins in a Unabomber shack.” By the time I finished trying desperately to just get you to look at the horrific birth defects that can come from undiversified genetics,it would be too late.
But hey, all that really matters is the guy’s rights, right?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635182923/Birth-defect-is-plaguing-children-in-FLDS-towns.html
I wasn’t talking about whether there was a moral argument one way or the other. I was merely responding to the claim that the feminists would come after someone who did that. So long as everyone involved is of legal age, there would be no *legal* reason for anyone to make trouble. Morals are a different question.
I think that, even outside the context of faith, a strong legal argument can and should be made. If the young people are minors who are being forced into unwanted sex, the government has every right to intervene. I think there are laws about intermarrying with first cousins in many states, and if there aren’t, there should be. I have seen a few of the documentaries on the FLDS, and they all screamed human rights violations, public health violations, and systemic child abuse. Furthermore, those polyester pastel dresses are a crime against humanity.
if women can be feminist Christians, men can have godly harems….
Also I am confident we are going to see David in heaven
“Feminism holds that women are allowed to make choices…” Is there an authoritative list of doctrines which feminism holds? If not, then how can you make that statement with any authority? But if there is one, then doesn’t that contradict what feminism holds, since the authoritative list would foreclose some of the choices they could make? You don’t have to answer as I’m really just gaming you here on the idea that feminism is a set of formal propositions. Like most protest movements of its kind, it’s just an expression of anger and rebellion against the way God made the… Read more »
Well feminism certainly has its theoreticians, though I’m not aware anyone has ever published a list of formal propositions. The central doctrine, if doctrine is the right word, is that genitalia is largely irrelevant to individual autonomy.
But again, if a particular woman buys into the patriarchy, no one is going to stop her. She just doesn’t get to make that choice for other women, and neither do the men.
K2 says, “She just doesn’t get to make that choice for other women, and neither do the men.”
Not even remotely true. As perhaps the flagship for abortion “rights”, Feminism does more than any other conceivable “movement” to eliminate women’s choice on every issue by way of killing them while they are still in the womb. Dead babies (male or female) don’t get to make a lot of choices.
I disagree with you that a fetus is a child. Even if it is, at that point you have choices in conflict with only one that can prevail.
Ignoring your defense (that you don’t know the definition of a fetus), I commend you for the consistency of your worldview on this point, that the strongest should prevail in any conflict. [Please mommy, don’t kill me. Shut up little girl, and take this scissors to the back of your head!]
However the point stands that Feminists DO take it upon themselves to enforce their choice on others, and especially upon the most vulnerable among us.
If a fetus is a child, why do we need a separate word for it? Why not just call them pre-born and post-born children? The very fact that we have a separate word for it should tell you they are not the same thing.
And my world view is not that the strongest should prevail in any conflict.
That is a pretty weak argument. Women frequently were “with child”. Giving names to stages of life like infant, toddler, adolescent of geriatric does not make them non-persons.
Unless she’s a medical professional talking about some other woman, the use of “fetus” means that she doesn’t plan to carry him/her to term. Come on , Krychek! “My mom is already knitting for the fetus.” “We’ve chosen a zoo theme for the fetus’s nursery.” “On my gosh, you’ve got a Fetus Bump and you’re only in the second trimester!” Or, perhaps my favorite “Guess what, honey? The fetus is a girl!”
“If a fetus is a child, why do we need a separate word for it?”
Easy – so feminists can murder them without revealing the fact that they know they are in rebellion against the God who made them.
But let me point out that we also have words like baby, toddler, pre-teen, and teenager. Which of these other small humans should the mother have the right to kill?
What, in your worldview, gives one accidental collection of cells the moral right to prevail over another accidental collection of cells?
Soylentg, the fact of birth.
So is it place of residence (in or out of the womb) or ability to survive without help from another that is THE event that bestows moral rights to an accidental collection of cells? And while your at it, how did that bestowing of moral rights come into being? Did it evolve?
Soylentg, the law has to draw bright lines even though in nature such lines may not always be crystal clear. In a state in which the age of consent for sex is 18, someone who is 17 years, 364 days old is probably as competent to make the choice as she will be the next day — there’s nothing magical about that one more day — but it’s the law’s business to draw lines, and wherever that line is drawn there will be close cases on either side of it. If you’re baking a cake, what is the precise moment… Read more »
The word “fetus” is Latin, and means “offspring” or “brood”. It seems that the use of the word to refer specifically to unborn or unhatched young goes back to the 14th c.
The use of the word fetus to refer to a specific stage of development of the offspring in question is one of those “English mugs other languages in dark alleys and rifles through their pockets for stray vocabulary” things.
Krychek, do you hold that as a legal principle or as a biological reality? In other words, do you believe that the fetus at 8 months gestation is qualitatively different from a newborn child, or do you believe that if a line must be drawn between a human with rights and one without, that line should be at birth?
If the latter, do you believe that Roe was wrongly decided in that it permits the states to draw the line before the third trimester?
Jill, see my response to soylentg above. While I agree with Roe’s bottom line — a flat ban on abortions is unconstitutional — I disagree with much of Roe’s rationale. I’m not even sure trimester is a useful measuring stick. I do think that the later it is in a pregnancy, the more of an interest the state has.
If a fetus is a child, why do we need a separate word for it? Why not just call them pre-born and post-born children? The very fact that we have a separate word for it should tell you they are not the same thing. Once again, the dictionary definition of “child” can refer to an unborn person – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child AND, one well known and VERY respected (among the pro-aborts, at least) woman, mother, and lawyer also referred to unborn children as “unborn persons” and has not corrected herself. It would seem, Krychek_2, that you might be about the only one… Read more »
“However the point stands that Feminists DO take it upon themselves to enforce their choice on others, … ”
Here is just one example — Swedish midwife loses fight to be exempt from performing abortions
As our host says, “There is *always* a ‘god’ of the system” … and that ‘god’ will be worshiped.
As I add, “If that ‘god’ is not the God who created men, it will be a ‘god’ created by men; If that ‘god’ is not the God who feeds men, it will be a ‘god’ which feeds off the lives of men.“
Llion, that is so horrifying that I don’t know where to begin. A midwife is a woman who helps a mother deliver her child. How did performing abortions ever creep into that job description?
I hope she does take it to the European Courts, and I hope she wins.
I think this decision is wrong and should be overturned, but I would say the same thing I said when we were discussing the baker: Just as I said that we should be able to have a society in which gays can get married but no one is required to bake them a cake, so we should also be able to have a society in which a woman who wants an abortion can get one, but no one is obligated to help with it. The problem is too little freedom, not too much.
Krychek, the early feminists came as close as anyone–Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, and Olympe de Gouges. But even they were mostly reactive to real abuses. I don’t think anyone now could develop a comprehensive list. The tone of some feminists has changed a little during in my lifetime. A lot of feminist rhetoric in the seventies did not respect the right of women to choose traditional roles. I remember listening to people who said that women should, for their own good, be prevented from making such choices. “If you are so oppressed, uneducated and deluded that you would rather… Read more »
Any woman in such an environment (or, say, a complementarian woman in Moscow, Idaho) is under a form of Stockholm Syndrome, incapable of making her own decisions and therefore the state should rescue her from something to which it is impossible to consent. Or something like that.
Glad to see you interacting with Dalrock. I think it will be productive.
Only women can be masculine with impunity. Feminists are perfectly fine with a masculine matriarchy.
Ummm, ……those hats don’t seem masculine at all to me!
????
“Only women can be masculine with impunity.” Well said. That hideous strength has flipped the tables on us in an unimaginable triumph. His maneuvers since the ’60s have been nothing but open and bald strikes against decency, and America, too busy with football and profits, pretty much just gave over its soul without a fight. God gave us up to believe a lie and Satan has his claws around our neck fully intent on asphyxiation. Now what? “Feminists are perfectly fine with a masculine matriarchy.” Femininity holds no value for American women. They long ago gave up chastity and virtue… Read more »
“Women are sinners also, and are capable of rationalizing their sin just like other people. “ It’s amazing how many people seem to be ignorant of this fact. “Their mistake is that they (too conveniently perhaps) ascribe the errors they have known personally to absolutely everyone who ascribes to the label they reject. “ “Perhaps”? It may be understandable but it is not a reasoned response. The situation is exacerbated further by those who contend that any known instances of abuse to anyone, not just themselves, necessarily extrapolates to the entirety of any grouping that includes the abuser. For example,… Read more »
OKRickety wrote:
Whenever anyone encounters this logic, we should respond with the question, “so you are saying that one instance of terrorism by a Muslim man means that all Muslim men are likely to be terrorists?” Listen for the sound of shear pins shearing.
“For example, one instance of spousal abuse by a “Christian” husband means that all Christian husbands are likely to abuse their wives”
Those who subscribe to the red pill WILL abuse their wives. The precurser for all abuse is to dehumanize your enemy, label them inferior, rebellious, suffering from the curse of Eve, a state of being that must be restrained, controlled,and erased. The very nature of that stupid game is psychologically abusive right off the bat.
@MeMe,
“Those who subscribe to the red pill WILL abuse their wives.”
In the same manner, wives who believe feminist thinking (whether they “subscribe” to it or not) WILL NOT submit to their husbands. This is a far bigger problem than the one you give, as there are far more wives with feminist thinking than there are red pill husbands.
No. Only an abuser would equate domestic violence with “she won’t submit to me.” The two are not equal and the same at all nor are they comparable in any way.
The No true Scotsman fallacy in action.
+10. I’d upvote you if I thought it was worth spending the time to “join” this comment system. For whatever faults Dalrock, et. al, have, MeMe and the Victimization Mafia are MUCH more destructive.
I don’t think that every Red Pill subscriber will abuse his wife. I think that perhaps he wishes that he could. Perhaps he daydreams about about playing Master and Slave. But a whole lot of the people who hang out in those comment sections strike me as pathetic wannabe dictators who would have trouble getting a date, let alone a wife. They’re keyboard warriors. And, for all we know about them, they may be timid little rabbits who ask their wives for money to go bowling. And submit meekly when she says no. Some of the few I have engaged… Read more »
Doug, the book ends of your patriarchal spectrum are off by a bit.
On the abusive, manipulative authoritarian end is Joseph Smith.
On the pseudo-feminist, manipulative wuss end is Bill Clinton.
No surprise that they are both lounge lizards.
Funny how the feminists really don’t have an answer for Bill Clinton.
Perhaps he and they are too much alike.????
Well, sure Adado, but I know a lot of feminists and I know a lot of Democrats. Nobody I know has ever offered any defense of Clinton’s sexual behavior. They think that his sexual conduct was disgusting. But, just as people held their noses and voted for Trump, a lot of people did the same with Clinton. The only place I can imagine ever seeing a defense of Clinton’s sexual ethics would be in that branch of the Manosphere that thinks women are sluts to be used and discarded at will. And certainly some of Clinton’s women seemed willing enough.… Read more »
Well, Jilly, a thing missing from my above patriarch spectral analysis is the center of the patriarchal spectrum, which is God. ???? As Dads go, God is pretty good, and fairly hands off in my experience! As to Bill Clinton vs. Joseph Smith, I guess I am observing that the wuss “patriarchs” don’t catch as much ire as the tyrant “patriarchs”, though “patriarch” is the wrong adjective for either of them. I expect that as real patriarchs go, my dad and your dad were pretty good . In spite of the undeserved flack that our host catches, he is pretty… Read more »
My dad was by no means perfect, but he exemplified some of the best qualities of Christian patriarchy (even though he wore his religion pretty lightly). He took for granted his responsibility to protect and provide for his family even when we ungrateful children never expressed our appreciation. Even when we invited him to abandon all efforts to keep us safe because such efforts were embarrassing us in front of our friends. Even when it never occurred to us that he might get tired and discouraged and need to be told that we loved and admired him. I thank God… Read more »
‘Spect the old guy is beaming, even as we speak!????????????
As long as he’s finally stopped saying in front of my brother, “Jilly should have been the boy in this family because she got my brains!” No one will ever know the reprisals I endured because of that comment!
I was working with all Democrats in 1998. I lived in San Franciscoas well…where everyone was and still is a Democrat. No one was “disgusted” by then President Clinton’s behavior. In fact, ALL were saying “It’s just sex, so what?”
“Well, sure Adado, but I know a lot of feminists and I know a lot of Democrats. Nobody I know has ever offered any defense of Clinton’s sexual behavior. ”
We must live on different planets.
On the planet on which I live, *all* the Democrats and feminists (to the extent that there is any difference) did nothing *but* make excuses for Clinton’s willful behavior.
Among normal people who don’t give much though to politics (and morals) and the ramifications thereof, men tended to be disgusted by Clinton’s hypocrisy, whereas women tended to make excuses for him.
Well this is lovely political speech, a soggy plate of overcooked pasta sure to soothe the wounded egos of the Lost Boys, Red Pills, and wife beaters alike.
As long as we are quoting Ezekiel, there are also a few things to said about the dangers of smooth plaster and untempered mortar.
Still Memi, what I think our host is espousing, is the healthy relationship between himself and his wife, and quite likely, the healthy relationship between you and Mr. Memi! ????????
Mr. MeMe is probably a myth…
Nope, Mr. Memi sounds like quite a guy.
Also sounds like he has the requisite sense of humor!
Thank you. Adad. Even if I annoy people, they should really be heaping praise upon Mr. Memi for his infinite patience and good humor.
@MeMe,
If your husband should ever grace us with his presence here, I’ll consider praising him … but I’d want his honest answers to several questions first.
Mr. Memi will never grace you with his presence. Mr. Memi often demands to know why I waste time trying to engage with “those fools.” Believe it or not, Mrs. Memi is actually the gentler, more empathetic side of the equation.
Which gives even more validation to my point…
@MeMe,
‘Mr. Memi often demands to know why I waste time trying to engage with “those fools.”’
If you agree with his assessment, and I suspect you often do, I suggest you consider this:
“Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.” [Pro. 23:9 NASB]
None of us sinners have infinite patience. And a good, strong husband wouldn’t sit by idly while his wife tears down others, lies and twists Scripture all of the time. Either he’s a myth altogether or the “strong, brave, godly, infinitely patient” husband is a myth.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Jill can accuse those on other sites of being keyword warriors who make everything up, then there need to be challenges here as well.
@MeMe,
“It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman.” [Pro. 21:19 NASB]
It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house. better. Proverbs 21:19
@Jill Smith, That appears to be Proverbs 21:9 (and is repeated in Proverbs 25:24).
Then isn’t there one about the constant drip of water? I always liked “Her feet stayeth not in her own house.” As somebody who has to be blasted out of my comfort zone with dynamite, no one will ever say that about me!
@Jill Smith
“A constant dripping on a day of steady rain and a contentious woman are alike;” [Pro 27:15 NASB]
There are at least 5 verses in Proverbs about contentious wives. Woe the pastor who brings them up in a sermon, though.
I raise you Ezekiel 23.
To know that there are people in the world who take those words literally,who apply them to actual physical women and miss the whole metaphor is enough to make me just cry, to grieve, lament the sheer foolishness and stupidity of people, the unbelievable suffering and misery they cause others.
“And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labour, and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered….”
“Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
and they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.”
Apart from the whoredoms (never a good thing), it sounds as if the ladies had been subjected to mammograms. Surely this can’t the passage you had in mind?
My only acquaintance with Ezekiel involves wheels a-rolling way in the middle of the air. Help me out, please.
Just being humorous
I know, but what does it mean? Or do I have to read Ezekiel for myself to find out? I am sorry to admit that my knowledge of Scripture begins and ends with Job and the New Testament!
It’s an extended metaphor for the unfaithfulness of the two kingdoms after they were divided.
But read it! You won’t get it all, but you will surely get something worth having. :-)
Jane, I tend to go back to the poetical bits over and over again (When all the stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy; Let justice flow down like a mighty river, etc., and of course, Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples.) I have, not surprisingly, read Genesis to Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Isaiah. The history (I have to take a break to warn my guardian angel to cover his ears) bores me to tears. Where should I begin? Would the history be more palatable and comprehensible if I read something other than… Read more »
Would the history be more palatable and comprehensible if I read something other than original KJV
Much easier. Try NIV for the history.
Whatever your read, make sure the prose is paragraphed; versification is nonsensical and difficult to read. A Readers Bible may help further (single column).
And download an app that has audio which you can listen to doing various tasks including driving.
Thank you. I am not getting any younger. It is time I started cramming for my finals.
The new ESV multi volume readers bible is pricey but it is a real joy. It looks and feels like a real book. There are no verse notations or other distractions. You can actually read the bible and not see it as a reference text.
As far as where to start it is fun to revisit the “popular” stories and read them closely. The Samuels and 1st Kings are good choices.
@Jill Smith! The Holy Spirit wrote you 66 books! Read them ALL, wummin! I’d echo the suggestion of an audio Bible. Here’s my favorite–it’s free and it’s only 54 hours long and the reader doesn’t sound like the star pupil of The Acme School for Dull, Pompous, and/or Overly Dramatic Narrators: http://www.davidpfield.com/audio-bible/AudioBible.htm.
When I moved to this city, 35 years ago, I visited a more “mainstream” church than I had grown up in. In his sermon, the pastor didn’t speak of ‘God’, but of “Gowwd!” And every time he said “Gowwd!“, in my mind I repeated (and mocked) “Gowwd!”
I never went back to that church.
And the language is *very* “earthy” — the Miss Grundys of the world would not approve, at all. If the chapter (and especially of the 20th verse) were expressed in present-day vernacular English, most people, even those who listen to and adore what passes for comedy these days, would be aghast.
“If she is not there, he is responsible to get her there, and he has the authority from God Himself to accomplish it. This is an authority that commissions and equips him in the task.”
How? This is what we want to know. He prays and prays. He teaches the scripture. He leads by example. But “she is not there.” She is contentious.
How does he respond with authority? Rebuke? Correction? Equipped with what tools?
She is commanded to fear [reverence] her husband. But how can she if he is in no way fearsome?
His fear of God is the starting point, along with a repentant understanding that he married a woman who was not submitted to God. He is getting what he originally agreed to. If God chooses to be merciful, He will give him what he does not deserve. But as long as he thinks he deserves it, chances are it won’t happen.
What should an abused wife do?
“Her fear of God is the starting point, along with a repentant understanding that she married a man who was not submitted to God. She is getting what she originally agreed to. If God chooses to be merciful, He will give her what she does not deserve. But as long as she thinks he deserves it, chances are it won’t happen.”
Or maybe a man should set rules and breaking them involves removing of privileges (spending less of his money on his wife).
I don’t think you are for real, but just in case…
If he hits her, she should hit the road.
Any man who thinks the money he earns is his alone, and spending money on his wife is a “privilege” bestowed has a lot more problems with rebellion against God and His word than a contentious wife. He should start by cleaning his own house.
“Any woman who thinks the affection she gives is hers alone, and giving affection to her husband is a “privilege” bestowed has a lot more problems with rebellion against God and His word than a frugal husband. She should start by cleaning her own house.”
I’m seeing lots of duties for men with no discretion on the men’s part on how to wisely use them (you must pay for an rebellious wife equally to a godly wife). But no duties for women and complete discretion on when to follow them for women.
I sure hope you aren’t married.
If you see marriage as a transaction of sex for money, then I suggest you try a different belief system, or investigate Christianity more thoroughly because you don’t understand the first thing about it.
The primary duty for a man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, dying for her while she was yet a sinner and His enemy. Without love, you will only see duty, obligation and lording it over another.
If a man loves his wife in this way, she will respond.
Ginny- Eh, not necessarily. Assuming a woman will respond if the husband loves her in the proper way is making a number of erroneous assumptions. 1) Women are machines. Input A=Output of B 2) We don’t assume this in other cases, that is, I have known people who were wonderful parents, whose children still went sideways. 3) It essentially assumes no sin nature for women. 4) It is ignoring the fact that women, when single, already have one who loved as Christ loved the church: Christ Himself. Yet, single women sin. Why do they sin? We don’t really think they… Read more »
So this whole conversation began with someone saying the wife wouldn’t submit. My point is to see the relativity of commands here. Is her submission being required to him over and above his to God? Many times it seems that way. Does he understand his commands from God? In the hierarchy of commands, which is most important? Was he concerned about her godliness when he married her (i.e. did he follow God’s commands on how to pick a wife)? Or was it something else? As Christ’s love and sacrifice is efficacious in transforming His people, so is a Godly husband’s… Read more »
“If a man loves his wife in this way, she will respond.”
A convenient get-out-of-jail-free card. All rebellion is the man’s fault. I guess if Jesus loves the Church correctly it would respond; I guess all problems are Jesus neglecting his duties.
Nice straw man.
@Ginny Yeager “If a man loves his wife in this way, she will respond.” I’d like to believe that is a universal truth, but it’s not, primarily because free will allows her to follow her carnal nature. (Men also follow their carnal nature and sin because of free will.) In this situation, a marriage relationship is indeed analagous to the relationship of a Christian to Christ. As you are no doubt aware, even though Christ is perfect in his love for the church, Christians continue to sin and, sometimes, even choose to leave Christianity altogether. Considering this truth, I am… Read more »
No where in the meandering stream of my responses do you see me letting wives off the Col 3:18 hook. Absolutely agree to these verses. Wives don’t wait until husbands have “arrived” before obeying these verses. However, the discussion was originally about what to do if she isn’t there. My point is that it is easy to focus on her behavior but ignore the much weightier command to him. There is a relative hierarchy to scripture, both in size and sequence. Jesus said tithing mint is a gnat in comparison to the camel of mercy. He said clean the inside… Read more »
“In the meantime, my original 21 theses had apparently been responded to here, which I just now read in the writing of this post, and I am afraid my response to the corporal punishment aficionados was taken as an assertion on my part that any disagreement with me from my right must be coming from wife beaters. Such poisoning the well would be a bad thing, and so for any readers who were disappointed in what they considered charitably to be uncharacteristic squid ink, please know that I did not do this thing.” I gathered this from your post, and… Read more »
Very well said.
Second! That’s profound and helpful analysis, CC.
While I am disgusted by the obtuseness and lack of charity of the majority of commentary on Wilson’s piece over at Dalrock’s place, I quite agree with this comment by Cane Caldo.
Hmm…while I agree with the general thrust of the argument and I hope I am not splitting hairs here, but I am curious at why Doug used Ephesians 5:26-27 as a text for the what the man does. This text is encouraging the love of the Husband upon the wife no doubt, but by pointing to what Christ has done. I have never seen anyone take the “sanctifying and the washing by the word of God” as a husband-ly duty and certainty not the “so He might presents the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle…” So I… Read more »
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it”
“Love” is expounded to mean giving of yourself for the sanctification of your wife.
The flow of the passage is that as men love their wives sacrificially they place the church in a position to be sanctified and washed by the Word of God, so that He/God can present them before God/himself without spot or blemish. Men’s job is to love creating environments for the whole church to grow but under God’s washing not man’s. As I said splitting hairs but I think the distinction is important.
“With regard to the heart of the issue, if we limit ourselves to the denotations, to the dictionary definitions, biblical Christianity is most certainly part of the patriarchy that the feminists want to smash. Not only so, but the apostle Paul is their chief villain. We must therefore do nothing that even looks like we are inching away from our commitment to whatever the Scriptures teach us on this subject.” “I freely acknowledge that I am part of the patriarchy that feminists want to smash—but I also acknowledge that there are aspects of the patriarchy that God wants to smash… Read more »
If God was really out to “smash” aspects of the patriarchy, one would think we’d have some biblical examples. So where are they? An example that God would want to smash would be husbands telling their wives to expose unwanted children; another would be the use of slaves for sexual purposes. Peter commands men to be cautious about their patriarchal responsibilities in the passage you mention. Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so… Read more »
being considerate with your wives, aka looking after her, providing for her, protecting her, helping her spiritual life is NOT smashing the Patriarchy
Getting women to be the provider , protector and leader is smashing the Patriarchy, The bible does not advocate for that, but complementarians and feminists do
protecting her, helping her spiritual life is NOT smashing the Patriarchy
Well not biblical patriarchy. But Doug is saying that there are (false) claims by men who promote a patriarchy which is unbiblical. Such examples are from the extreme honour killing in Islam, through to physical discipline, to not honouring your wife as the weaker vessel.
I agree, Bethyada. And perhaps forcing virginal teens to marry old men against their will, and definitely honor killing for perceived sexual delinquencies in the absence of any due process. Forcing a woman to continue to bear children when a medical doctor has said it is likely to result in her death. Forcing a wife to engage in sexual practices which are violent and degrading, or which Christians have traditionally condemned. Taking away a woman’s child and giving it to someone else to raise. All of these practices have accompanied patriarchy at some time or other.
Actually, in both these instances God is reinforcing patriarchy (man-rule) by instructing and guiding men in how they are to exercise their authority justly.
Notice how scripture never tells women to rebel against man-rule (patriarchy) but instead exhorts them to submit. Christian wives should be asking themselves if they are in submission, and leave the judging of their husbands to God.
There is some truth to what you have written, but it depends on what you mean by rebel.
Abigail was right in going over her husband. Women were allowed to apply for divorce in certain situations and their cases were upheld. And criminal action (by a husband) is allowed to be opposed.
Uncomplaining and unquestioning submission was perhaps the best option when there was no other recourse available to an abused wife. If I had to live with Kim Jong-un, my safety would depend on my talent at bowing and scraping, not to mention obsequious flattery. But I don’t think that is the model for Christian marriage. Even if a wife’s submission is imperfect, she does not have to tolerate a husband’s adultery. She does not have to have his paramour move into the marital bed. She does not have to endure the kind of violence that would send a man to… Read more »
PAUL is not their Chief Villain
God is
Some commentators here have big issues with God on this one, but it makes sense, they refuse to submit to their husbands why do you expect them to submit to God?!!
:PAUL is not their Chief Villain … God is”
Yep. When you don’t yet believe you have the power to successfully attack the king, you attack his ministers.
There will always be aspects of the patriarchy to be smashed, even though the patriarchy itself absolutely biblical, because it will always be lived out by sinners, who will add accretions that will need to be smashed. I am quite certain this is all he means.
Speaking of adding “accretions” to patriarchy shows you don’t even understand basic terminology (to be fair, neither does Wilson). Patriarchy doesn’t refer to specific social rules, but is quite literally “rule by men (fathers).” This social arrangement not need be destroyed, but rather reinforced and practiced. Or in other words, if men and fathers are abusing their God-given authority, this is for God to judge and not women.
I think the one not understanding is you. You can add accretions to anything — that’s what accretions are.
The principle of father-rule is biblical. The stuff people add to it that they think is part of it, and treat as part of it, is often not. That’s what needs to be smashed.
And who says “women” are the judges? You are overly defensive against things not being said.
Patriarchy can be run either justly or unjustly; similarly as a king might be just or unjust. The instances of unjust behavior from fathers doesn’t discount the legitimacy of rule by fathers. Never should a Christian speak of smashing patriarchy. Certain rulers should change their behavior, yes. But the problem is individuals and not God’s system.
As long as you understand that you are making a (fairly reasonable, IMO) argument against Wilson’s choice of words, and not against the meaning he is trying to convey.
Jane, I thank you for your charity, but disagree this is merely about word choice.
Wilson wrote: And of course things have gotten so muddled that if Caspar starts to grow a backbone, he can be accused of wanting to join forces with Elias. And if Elias starts to have second thoughts about some of his more outlandish idiocies, he can quite handily be accused to kowtowing to feminism. It’s as if the majority of the Dalrock commenters can’t help themselves from dismissing Wilson as their mortal enemy, which plays right into the feminist strategy of divide and conquer. A lot of bitterness and selective hastiness from various men in the comment section there. The… Read more »
Well ‘cho, speaking as a somewhat wounded man myself, when Wilson made the above quote, I asked if it did not count for Hosea. Wilson agreed that it did not. As for tough brides, look who Christ picked. He should not be crapped on for being faithful to that bride. Speaking of brides, the whole submission thing is better informed by the centurion: “8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he… Read more »
Can’t we all just go back to channeling Ward and June Cleaver? Sometimes I channeled Donna Reed for variety, but I was usually June. The mom in Father Knows Best was kind of mean to her son sometimes and she favored the girls, so I struck her off my list of role models.
Go back? (to the Cleavers?)
Some of us never left! ; – )
I have read comments on those sites from men whose attitude toward physical discipline seems unhealthy and unclean. Decent parents are not actively searching for reasons to punish their children; they would much prefer that punishment never be necessary. There is something twisted here that sets off alarm bells.
Good, there should be alarm bells going off.
@Jill Smith,
Indeed, there are some commenters at Dalrock who do not understand God’s truth, and also those who are avowedly non-Christian, and even so-called pick-up artists. However, contrary to the thoughts of some here, this does not mean that all of them (or even, perhaps, most of them) are ogres. As Wilson states in his post, “Hateful men don’t prove that loving men are a chimera.”
Jill, not all of us are Canadian. Some of us know from experience that kids in their families need spanking early and often to have a chance at being civilized.
@Katecho It might help for Wilson to run through several concrete examples of indisputably sinful wives, and set some practical boundaries on what a husband can do to exercise the authority that he is supposed to possess. IIRC he does just this in For a Glory and a Covering. Wilson is, without doubt, very hard on the man in the relationship. I think this is generally appropriate, but it can be taken as giving the rebellious woman a pass (even though there seems to be a huge selective blindness to the many places where Wilson addresses rebellious women at length).… Read more »
“He says you have been given an authority but that comes with a responsibility.”
Within the church a good deal of the wounding is enabled by preachers who ascribe to men responsibility without authority. That’s why *in that respect* I prefer over mainstream evangelical churches moderately those progressive (as they would call it) churches that are not overtly feminist but would not hold men any more or women any less responsible.
Should read “those moderately progressive…” vice, moderately those progressive
@Katecho “A lot of bitterness and selective hastiness from various men in the comment section there. The leap to attribute the most wicked motives to Wilson is over-the-top from several of them.” Yes, indeed. Given the opportunity, many of them seem to suppose the worst as quickly as possible, instead of reading with understanding. Not the only place I’ve seen this behavior. “However, I think Dalrock, himself, was at least calm in his original analysis,….” Calm perhaps, but not as accurate as he might think. I think he does far better with analysis of statistical studies. “There is clearly a… Read more »
Katecho, Great points on all counts. It must be added, though, that when you speak of the men who are deeply wronged and wounded we must include the wider social factors that enable this wounding. Divorce and related laws are flagrantly biased, I would argue by design, to entice women to use the government against their husbands. The wider social world lionizes single mothers as the world’s greatest thing ever, when in actuality, their offspring do far more damage to our society than nearly any other demographic, and that phenomenon makes cultural room for men to be harmed, and rather… Read more »
” … brought up in a prairie muffin jumper, and who had her hair in a bun for a couple decades … such absurdity ….” No, no, no. You mock sincere and genuine expressions of feminine modesty. Such statements should not originate from our side. Your word does not comport with God’s Word. ” … the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel ….” 1 Timothy 2:9 My wife wears jumpers on occasion and we live nowhere near a prairie. What you mean by “muffin”… Read more »
I suspect that prairie muffin jumpers are jumpers worn by prairie muffins.
I wore one every day for the last five months of pregnancy, and I will never wear one again.
The Who,e idea of modesty is not to bring undue attention to ones’s self. To fit in. Prairie muffins modesty sticks out like asore thumb and draws lots if attention.
Exactly. If I start to wear full Amish regalia through the streets of Los Angeles, I might suspect myself of wanting to be a public spectacle.
“Amish is the new Goth!’ ; – )
“The Who,e idea of modesty is … To fit in.”
Good grief. That’s precisely where we’re at.
Down goes the ship.
Deploy lifeboats!
God have mercy.
It’s probably a lot more destructive to place the worst possible construction on a phrase regardless of the context, than to use a poor choice of words in pointing out that modesty ought to cause a person not to be distractingly odd in appearance, but rather ordinary enough to be overlooked.
I was responding to the ENTIRETY of her statement on modesty, bold Jane. There was no intent to quote her out of context. Good grief; her words are one mouse scroll above mine.
Consider whether you might be possessed of high-mindedness, bold Jane.
@Jane “Modesty: behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency.” “… modesty ought to cause a person not to be distractingly odd in appearance, but rather ordinary enough to be overlooked.” I think the intention of modesty in appearance for the Christian is to be acceptable in God’s eye rather than the sake of one’s own vanity and certainly not determined by what the world finds to be normal. I think it would best to not presume that “prairie muffin” appearance is done to attract attention. It is possible, of course, but I think it highly unlikely. Regarding… Read more »
@OKRickety well in a culture that only wears grass skirts a play suit would be seen as more immodest.
But I think Jane is getting at the fact that Paul and Peter tell women to dress modestly and that is more about stopping dressing extravagantly.
We can agree that naked is not modest. But tight is not modest. Extravagant is not modest. And sometimes everyone-look-at-me-and-how-dour-I-look is not modest either.
@bethyada
I cannot determine what you define as modesty. It seems that the primary factor you consider is the degree of difference of one’s appearance from that of others, but you do also consider ostentatiousness to be a form of immodesty.
For myself, I believe the Biblical teaching is that modesty of appearance is the result of one’s humility and desire to please God. Immodesty of appearance is the result of either vanity or a desire for attention (from either sex).
“For myself, I believe the Biblical teaching is that modesty of appearance is the result of one’s humility and desire to please God.” Rickety, this definition seems androgynous. Have you figured into your analysis the SINGULAR nature of Paul’s admonition to modesty? ” … the *WOMEN* (emphasis mine) are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel ….” 1 Tim 2:9 When the apostle addresses women, he STARTS with modesty and then layers it on. Where is there an equivalent instruction for men? Where is there a Pauline… Read more »
@Kevin Brendler I think Paul directly addresses the women because they, just like women today, liked to wear jewelery, have their hair done, and wear clothes they considered attractive. Men [Note: Yes, I am a man.], as a general rule, have not had a great interest in these themselves. Presuming this was true of men in Biblical times, then there was no reason for Paul to address them on this issue. Nonetheless, none of this restricts concerns of modesty in physical appearance to only women or even only to women’s sexual allure. I continue to believe that Paul is more… Read more »
@OKRickety sorry, didn’t see this.
I think immodesty is sexually alluring or ostentatious.
“I think the intention of modesty in appearance for the Christian is to be acceptable in God’s eye rather than the sake of one’s own vanity ….” Rickety, I think your definition of modesty fails the point also. It’s not as lame as this … “ordinary enough to be overlooked” … but you also leave out the controlling factor in the definition. Men! Woman is taken from the rib of man. She is not built from an independent lump of dirt. Therefore, she is always defined by and in her relationship to man. No, I’m not a redpill :-D, a… Read more »
@Kevin Brendler,
“The apostle wants those women who profess the Faith to be self-consciously dressing so as NOT to distract men sexually.”
While I do agree that women should not choose to dress themselves to be sexually alluring to men (other than their own husbands in private), I do not think that was the primary intention of Paul’s teaching, nor have I found a respected commentary that subscribes to this view.
so if you live in a prostitute neighborhood the Godly thing to do is to dress like a whore?
because doing anything else will bring attention to you!
Amen. Mocking women who are modest, even in ways that are not trendy, is not the purview of the pulpit.
Not all manifestations of modesty, like not all manifestations of any attempt at virtue, are equally good and beyond criticism. Women who make themselves up into a certain anachronistic and unattractive look can be gently chided to the extent that they believe that is the ideal manifestation of modesty.
” … masculinity itself is the enemy ….”
You nailed it right there.
This *_IS_* the fight and it’s a death match.
It’s not the male they despise, for hordes of males fight with them. It’s masculinity that must be severed from the future.
Was it Van Til who coined the term “epistemological self-consciousness?” The vicious opposition now openly, and without hesitation, declares his target. He has recognized the decisive battleground and is calling up all available to the front.
Masculinity is the jugular upon which he brings down the knife.
O God, save the man.
” … words like patriarchy do have accumulated cultural connotations ….” Whatever the term “patriarchy” does mean, I don’t use it. And whatever Biblical Patriarchy means, I don’t associate with it. Not that anybody should care :-) As I understand the progress of redemptive history, the church is the nucleus of the Kingdom of Christ and NOT the family. Which of the following generalities is true? 1. The church is the center of God’s redemptive program and a church is comprised of families. or 2. The family is the center of God’s redemptive program and families unite to form a… Read more »
I must politely disagree. The biblical pattern is to establish the covenant and pass it along through families, see Abraham. Our affiliation with the covenant does mean that our brothers and sisters in Christ take greater precedence over my wife and kids.
“The biblical pattern is to establish the covenant and pass it along through families, see Abraham.”
I believe the NT pattern is to establish the Covenant in Christ’s blood through preachers sent out by the church; see Paul ;-)
Hmmm… You are one of those types, eh?
Well, I don’t believe in sending out preachers. :)
“Hmmm… You are one of those types, eh?”
:-D
Not Dispensational (perish the thought), but I see a bit more discontinuity in there than you do, my friend.
“Well, I don’t believe in sending out preachers. :)”
LOL
You are definitely right since I see zero discontinuity. But it is good to see the distancing from Dispensationalism. I think we can still be friends, then.
” … zero discontinuity.”
Zero? So would I be right to understand you as a Reconstructionist in the Rushdoony mold? Used to be a convinced Theonomist myself.
Dispensationalism, with all its Rapture charts, always smelled of rotten food to me. Even the classic Pre-mill stuff turned my stomach.
“I think we can still be friends, then.”
That would be nice, except …
Sooner or later we’ll be in a theological brawl :-D
Until then I’ll cheer you on, mate.
Theonomist? A proud one!
Reconstructionist? Probably, depends on what you mean here.
Rushdoony? He was a little to caustic for my taste, so I will say no, but I do agree with him in a lot of cases.
Theological brawl? I live for this stuff.
“Theological brawl? I live for this stuff.”
:-D
Hopefully we can dance together for a while …
Before we drop to the mat and get it on.
I play for keeps.
Friendship won’t survive the engagement.
Never does.
“Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape’s setting up a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one.”
“Or at least keep misrepresentations to a minimum . . .”
It ain’t just you. From Dilbert:
https://twitter.com/ThomasIvar62/status/892072616919543808
To say, “there are aspects of the patriarchy that God wants to smash,” is entirely misleading, and muddles the English language. This is comparable to saying that there are aspects of marriage that God wants to smash, or aspects of praying that God wants to smash. He wants to smash sin and it effects on patriarchy, marriage, prayer, etc. The more that we do that, the more a biblical patriarchy will return. One part of this discussion that I think is missing is the idea that patriarchy is the natural default position. It takes a dam to relocate river streams,… Read more »
Could you please name the swedish feminists that are rape apologists. I nerver heard of one.
Feminist politician Barbro Sörman is one example.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/05/feminist-swedish-politicians-defends-migrant-rapists-worse-western-men-culture/
But it is a wider problem in the culture.
http://time.com/4182186/sweden-feminists-sexual-assault-refugees/
NO SYMPATHY for swedes who get raped, they insulted their men, weakened them, mocked them for providing and protecting – and now evil men are attacking them…
funny that, when you replace the good patriarchy the evil patriarchy takes over…
Karma for women!
who naively think that God has somehow decided to take away the curse of men ruling harshly over women
“On a long enough time line, the river of patriarchy wins.”
Powerful argument, Kilgore.
Male headship will be restored in America, either by Revival or Jihad.
Unbelief hates God so intensely that they’re *actually* choosing the latter.
Upvote
To say, “there are aspects of the patriarchy that God wants to smash,” is entirely misleading, and muddles the English language. This is comparable to saying that there are aspects of marriage that God wants to smash, or aspects of praying that God wants to smash. Not at all, Wilson uses rhetoric in his arguments (and loves metaphor). I can think of examples of the above. In an argument about the Marxists wanting to destroy marriage (and the nuclear family) one could say the only marriage God wants to destroy is gay marriage. Or in prayer, God may want to… Read more »
Abusive men are not “aspects of the patriarchy that God wants to smash.” Gay marriage is not an aspect of marriage that God wants to smash. Gay marriage is not a thing. It is a square circle or a married bachelor. Prayer to idols is talking to a rock, not actual prayer.
If the good reverend is trying to make a point about abusive men, fine let him do so with my blessings. But don’t attach it to patriarchy when there is no connection. That is operating under feminist assumptions that there is some causal connection between patriarchy and abuse.
“But dams eventually break, and water finds it level. It takes huge amounts of effort and energy to build and maintain a dam.”
Ok, but yet it is often better to build and maintain a dam. In other words, something being the “natural state” tells us nothing in particular about whether it is good or bad, or whether it should be embraced or rejected.
My argument was that we need a particular version of patriarchy, not just any ole patriarchy.
But, I would quickly add that my point was not to address the goodness of it. I was just pointing out that what we have now is unsustainable. Patriarchy can be either good or bad. I argue it is good, even when flawed. But to try and reject it and eradicate it is a fool’s errand.
Well said.
“On the one end we have Elias One-Tooth, presiding over his compound filled with adoring females, and on the other we have Caspar Milquetoast, presiding over his next qualified apology.” Oh man, I wish that fit into a tweet!
This quite interesting. I was someone who married a feminist in my foolish youth as an average guy thinking she would be ok with my uncaring personality that challenges authority. We have both been saved by Grace through Christ our savior. Me for 17 years, her for 15 years. My stoic uncaring personality changed immediately and that is what she noticed and took her a long tome to believe it was real before she found Christ. The only difference is that her feminist rebellion remains. As an easy going man trying to live with understanding, she has dragged us through… Read more »
Wow….very painful, but all too common. I have a friend who’s separated and on the verge of divorce due to his wife’s adultery. However, on her Facebook page she puts links about women being “psychologically abused” and claims she’s such a victim. Her kids and even siblings disagree and side with her husband, but she has a raving fan base of “You go girl!” female followers. According to the adulteress, Jesus knows what she went through and is cool with her. And she loves Jesus…she just hates people in the church that are sooo judgmental. These are the times we… Read more »
Hey Jeff, This dynamic is much more common than Christians like to admit. But just understand that we all bring baggage into our marriages and those of us who were saved after we married have a tougher go at it. I was a nightmare husband and my wife helped cause her share of the problems. It does take patience and persistence, but if we follow God’s directives diligently, it gets better. We are happily married still. This conversation begins with your relationship to God first, and then to your wife. So, for example, God commands corporate worship. Start by being… Read more »
” … she found Christ. The only difference is that her feminist rebellion remains.” How is a woman such as you describe even considered a Christian? There is no such thing as a Feminist Christian. If her “feminist rebellion” continues, 15 years(!) into the marriage, then someone should inform the lass that she’s a false convert, that she has “believed in vain” (1 Cor 15:2). And that *responsibility* would be yours, my friend. We are what we live. If we do not live out the Faith in accordance with the holy Scriptures, then let us condemn ourselves as unbelievers and… Read more »
Doug, I get the impression that you are intentionally skirting the issue of discipline being inexorably linked to authority. People in positions of authority always have some means of discipline at their disposal. Employers don’t spank their employees, but they may fire them, suspend them, deny them overtime, or assign them unpleasant tasks as disciplinary measures. Likewise, church leaders do not spank their disorderly members, but they can place them under Church discipline. Military officers do not spank their subordinates, but they certainly discipline them. You talked about “corporal punishment” when you know that isn’t really what most guys are… Read more »
“Real heirarchy/authority always includes some sort of authorization to discipline.”
No, that’s just every other authority in the universe including Jesus and the Church. Between a husband and wife the analogy might be Christ and Church, but what God really means is that if a man is properly “leading” then the woman will “respond”.
And leading always means “serving” and “let your wife make the decision when she wants to.” Anything else is dangerous, dark form of patriarchy!