A few days ago, I tweeted this:
“We have really gotten messed up by our servant-leaders, b/c we think we are to lead by serving instead of serving by leading.”
Some consternation ensued, with some people liking this fine, sending it on down the twitter-road, with others thinking that it explained everything about me that needed explaining. So let us unpack it a bit.
First, what I don’t mean. I don’t mean that a man can be selfish and grasping in spirit, and yet discharge his obligations to be “servant of all” by being obnoxious and bossy. It is not as though serving is one thing, and leading another, but that if a man simply does the latter, then he can just call the former good. Being a selfish pig doesn’t go away just because a man decides to be a blustery and demanding selfish pig.
I take it as a given that all Christian leaders are to be servant-leaders. I think the phrase is a wonderful phrase. And like all wonderful phrases, it takes the devil about ten minutes to start in with his distortions of it. But before dealing with the distortions, let me go on record as one who approves of what Jesus said. “and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:44, ESV). That is a good thing.
Now some might mutter that it is awfully big of me to go around agreeing with Jesus. A low-risk operation, right? I don’t know — quite a few of the things Jesus said are as unpopular with Christians today as the day He first said them. “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me” (Luke 19:27, ESV).
And so let us use that as an example of servant-leadership. Let us postulate an occasion when leadership requires executing your enemies, or taking that hill, or making a really tough decision that will affect your family radically. A servant-leader sacrifices himself by doing what he was assigned to do, and without complaining about it. A servant-leader does not justify deserting his post because there was too much responsibility there. If the prince shuffles off his demanding responsibilities in order to spend the day working in the palace kitchens, that is not servant-leadership. If the responsibility is to be hard, it is not possible to discharge that responsibility by being soft.
Taken the right way, servant-leadership means leading with the right disposition, the right heart, the right motives. With the good of others in mind, the leader does what he is called to do. He does it out of obedience. His heart is soft, however hard the task is.
But taken the wrong way, servant-leadership makes about as much sense as soft-hardness. When that kind of disaster unfolds, it is because the hapless leader is trying to assign softness and hardness to the same thing, to the same actions. Servant-leadership is learning what responsibilities were assigned to you in Scripture, and then obeying.
So bring this down to marriage. The problem is that many Christian men, who ought to be leaders in their homes, have taken the phrase servant-leader as their justification for becoming servant-servants. Now of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving your wife a neck rub, and neither is there anything wrong with listening. There is a lot wrong with not listening. But there is something deranged about doing such things instead of fulfilling your office.
Now when you fulfill your office, by taking responsibility, by making the final decision after much discussion, by providing for your wife, by protecting her and the children, you discover there is no way to do such things effectively without being hard. But a servant-leader is hard for his family. He is not hard on his family.
And this is why, I guess, Jory Micah thinks I am an “extreme complementarian.” There are soft complementarians out there who are basically feminists in denial. They do this through blurring all the essential boundaries. But what is the actual difference between the feminist “men are not leaders” and the soft complementarian “men are leaders who should lead by never leading”?
In all our current controversies, from the national ones over marriage, to the local ones about this or that case of abuse, this is always the central root issue. In the weddings I perform, the bride promises to obey her husband. And I don’t put the obey in scare quotes. There is no ironic lilt to my voice when I get to “that part.” We are not doing this on autopilot. This is no blind tradition. It is an act of principled defiance, in which we are telling the zeitgeist to pound sand.
Of course there is a context for it and it is all appropriately qualified — the vows contain other words also, like cherish, promise, love, and covenant. The necessary qualifications come from human nature, western civilization, and holy Scripture. But after all the appropriate qualifications are duly noted, that word is still there. And as long as it is there, our central offense continues, and the demands for a groveling apology grow apace.
I have to quibble with your reference to Luke 19:27. That verse comes at the end of the parable of the ten minas, and although Jesus is speaking, he is *quoting* the king in the parable, who is meant to represent a jealous God who judges justly based on what the servants have done with the money he left them. So, Jesus is speaking, but not *as Jesus* per se. He wasn’t saying that he wanted his enemies to be dragged in front of him and killed, but that the King in the parable would be perfectly justified in doing… Read more »
So you think that those who don’t want Jesus to reign over them will not be slaughtered in front of Him?
I think that’s possible, but debatable from Biblical portrayals of the last judgment. (Isn’t Hell, not a literal slaughter, the second death?) But the real point is, Luke 19:27 does not show Jesus exhibiting servant-leadership. There are different kinds of leadership, clearly.
Doug was pointing out that agreeing with all things Jesus said is not necessarily “low risk”, even in Christian circles. I thought the example was well chosen.
It is only “high risk” if you irresponsibly or ignorantly apply Scripture. Context is everything. Jesus also said “Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son” (Luke 15:18). Context is everything.
It appears as though you are being intentionally obtuse.
No worries though carry on.
What is obtuse about this? A person can take a quote from Jesus and say “Jesus says this” and, if it is removed from its proper context, some Christians might find the saying difficult to handle. The quote I use is an example of this principle. I could write a blog post about Luke 15:18, talking about how Jesus felt that he was sinful. But would I be right? Of course not. The verse I quoted is no more about Jesus being sinful than Luke 19:27 is about headship-style leadership–or leadership at all.
Spike, I see your point. I think there are parables that speak of a literal slaughter that reference events such as 70AD, and the end of history, and that in between these events, Jesus has great mercy to give everyone a chance to repent and flee the wrath to come. However, the time to repent is one of those limited time offers.
Funny.
Revealing, how you think that speaking the words of Jesus will be low-risk if you speak them responsibly and with knowledge… Jesus tells us we will suffer persecution if we follow him. His words are not pallettable to the world.
You misunderstand. Doug’s point is that adhering to some of the things Jesus says is “high risk” among Christians–that there are Christians that find His words hard to swallow. What I’m saying is that Christians would not find this verse hard to take unless you take it out of context and use it to support something it is not meant to support. And that is true of all of Jesus’ teachings. Of course the “world” will not accept much of what Jesus says. But that’s not Doug’s point, and it isn’t mine either.
Context is not everything, but you do a great job of highlighting the importance of it.
“A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.” Who was the nobleman? The Suffering Servant is no longer suffering, and as a result, all men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe. The Nobleman has “receive[ed] for himself a kingdom… He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: King of kings and Lord of lords…and is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into… Read more »
Every knee shall bow before the King.
Every tongue shall confess that He is the Lord.
All nations will be placed under His feet.
And many of them really, really won’t like it.
Thus the sword.
Jesus is not Prince Humperdinck.
For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son — John 5:22 As with attempts to base ongoing church practice on the transitional early church, we will make similar mistakes if we try to isolate Jesus to a particular point in His incarnation. Some want to imagine Christ as a perpetual infant on Mary’s lap, or as a perpetual victim nailed to a cross. That is true history, but Christ has risen and ascended to the throne at the right hand of the Father. Christ has been glorified, and crowned, and received His… Read more »
Or he could have just been telling a story to make a point. But it is fun to think about non-Christians getting slaughtered with swords, isn’t it?
I would settle for spiked on their own petard.
Why such joy in the death of sinners? Remember, “Many who say to me Lord, Lord . . . ” Be careful what you wish for.
I don’t recall saying that I had joy in the death of sinners, or that it was fun to think of non-Christians getting slaughtered. It seems that Pittard is misrepresenting me as freely as he misrepresents Wilson. However, I do believe a severe outcome for the unrepentant is just and righteous, in God’s providence. For example, I think that it is good when someone gets blown up by the bomb that they set as a trap for the righteous.
*That* is being hosted by one’s own petard.
Except a petard isn’t a spiky thing, it’s a little bomby thing. So little that the word basically means “fart.” The hoisting isn’t as on a stake or cross or spike, but being tossed up by an explosion.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument. ;^)
Not so fast. :-) The petar’ that Shakespeare had in mind was certainly big enough for a man to be hoisted on. And “to spike” is to be pierced or impaled, which is what bombs do to flesh. Especially the shrapnel kind. I stand by my play on words.
OK, OK…I’ll let you by on a technicality. ;^)
Thanks, years of thinking that ‘petard’ was ‘belt loops’ and to be ‘hoisted by one’s own petard’ was to be suspended from one’s belt-loops. All that blissful ignorance and mental imagery–which worked very well, btw–down the drain.
English is hard.
I almost think some folks would be happier converting to Islam and joining the Taliban.
You can be sure that if certain factions of Christianity in this country were able to take control of the government, there would be some similarities for sure.
They tell us so, outright.
Who are “they”? Is Laura making a veiled slap at Wilson? She is against slapping, right?
Actually, no.
Government would be as our Founders designed it–small, close to the people and with well defined responsibilities, severe limits on its roles and scope.
Self governance in that would be like the self governance in these comment sections.
Doug “The Fed” Wilson rarely gets involved and the capital punishment is swift and relatively painless.
So would this self-governance as the Founders designed it allow for communities agreeing to accept same-sex marriage if that community chose to do so? Is freedom of religion still supported? If a community has members of different faiths in its walls, are they allowed to believe what they want? The sense one gets from reading Doug and the comments on this blog is that liberal, tolerant, PC folks, Muslims, etc. are the enemy and need to be smacked down. Would the “Founders Model” you ascribe to allow for protections of people who have widely divergent views?
Why do you continue to impose a top-down approach to federalized decisions?
Power? I am not going to take that bait. Do some work on resiliant communities and anti-fragile systems and design of same and your question makes no sense.
I don’t know how you’re applying these terms, but resilient communities usually applied to communities that are able to withstand difficult situations, whether economic, social, what have you. And “antifragility” has not been applied to governance as far as I know. But I may be wrong about that and frequently am. Whatever the case, it seems like the concepts you are pointing to would all indicate that communities thrive when stressors arrive in them–in fact, the stressors are vital to the growth and development of the community. And that’s what I’ve been saying. Social change–the increase in acceptance of gender,… Read more »
And that’s what I’ve been saying. Social change–the increase in acceptance of gender, homosexuaity, “tolerance”, etc. are all stressors that are necessary for the development of the resilient society. The Amish are doing quite well. I do not accept the term ‘gender’ when ‘sex’ serves admirably. I do not accept homosexuality, I loathe it. I am not ‘tolerant’ of sin; I despise it. My view are widespread and commonplace in my community. America grows weaker as it embraces and tolerates sin. Her government will fall and we will return to what we had, but with a bit more of an… Read more »
Of course, I know we don’t agree. I was just letting you make that clear. I’ll leave you with this thought: Soren Kierkegaard, in his book Fear and Trembling, talks about what he calls the “man of faith.” For him, Abraham is the perfect example of such a man. Abraham is a man that has such tremendous faith that he actually rises above the understood morality of even his own community. It is against God’s law now just as it was then to murder–yet Abraham is called to murder his own son. If he had told anyone what he was… Read more »
What you see there is faith. That is what I have. The Lord is real and He ‘forms’ us into radical trust with the actions you describe Abraham doing.
Idiomatic-antithesis–the letter of the law vs. the Spirit of the Law.
God always wants to draw us to the latter–to Him.
You cannot seem to wrap your head around the fact that He has done this with me. Every exegis here has been honest. Your argument is a meek ‘disqualify’
Blessings to you.
Okay. Thought I was done with this, but it’s hard to stop. You say this: “You cannot seem to wrap your head around the fact that He has done this with me. Every exegis here has been honest.” First of all, I do not discount that you are a person of faith. What I can not wrap my head around is that you can not wrap your head around the idea that your faith is your faith, while the faith of others is the faith of others, and there is at least a possibility that your understanding of God and… Read more »
and there is at least a possibility that your understanding of God and the way God works might not be 100% correct. Well, we can be 100% sure that “the way God works” is completely up to Him, that His ways are not my ways, that His ways are higher than mine, that His thoughts are higher than mine. God is in charge of conveying Himself to His children, not me. Therefore, you judge and exclude others that do not think the way you do. Yes. I do. I judge and exclude the sort of people who kill babies in… Read more »
I’m with you in judging people who laugh at a pair of eyeballs falling their laps. No argument there. You say this: “While he may have found one that more clearly made the point, it is my opinion that it illustrated the point he was making (on the nature of ‘hard’ decisions) well enough. No study was necessary, the text speaks for itself.” I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I think this point is an important one, as it carries over into other areas as well. Study is necessary! We can’t say “the text speaks for itself”… Read more »
It’s really too bad Soren didnt’ see if the Bible had any conclusions as far as Abraham’s motives that would have stood in contrast to his conclusion. A simple opening of Hebrews and this fine thinker would see that Abraham’s faith was not a suspension of the ethical. And I think scripture rules over C.S. Lewis and those who would see children as pure and the ideal we should strive for. Fully dependent childlike faith is scriptural, but not thinking and believing like a child, those ways are to be put behind us not sought after.
Agreed. I am not in favor of thinking and believing like a child. C.S. Lewis wasn’t advocating thinking like a child. He was trying to get at the idea that the faith of other people is really none of our business and not our place to judge. Not a childlike idea, but rather a mature understanding. As for Abraham and Soren, there is nothing in Hebrews that indicated Abraham was NOT in suspension of the ethical. There is no doubt that Soren is riffing on Scripture to make a point, but his point is not discredited by Hebrews. Abraham accepts… Read more »
Spike, you seem to suggest that Abraham’s obedience to God, and ignoring traditional ethics and morality in the process, is a shining example for moral relativism. Is this a fair assessment?
Kierkegaard is not advocating for moral relativism, though it may appear that way. At his core he is a “Christian Existentialist” in that he really believed that each one of us is on an island. We work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (that’s why he named the book on this subject Fear and Trembling). He does not argue that all things are permissible. Rather, it is the idea that a person who lives by a deep and vibrant faith has a relationship with God that is so intensely personal that people looking at it from the outside… Read more »
Kierkegaard does advocate for what he called “subjective truth”, but it was not a denial of objective truth. It had to do with the existential leap of faith, and the passion required to truly experience God. He was disgusted with the passive dogmatism of Christendom in his day. I don’t disagree with anything you said Kierkegaard said about Abraham. So far, so good. The reason I ask is that you yourself seem to advocate for moral relativism when you say that minorities, women, and homosexuals have it better today than they did at the founding, as though the country has… Read more »
You write this: “The reason I ask is that you yourself seem to advocate for moral relativism when you say that minorities, women, and homosexuals have it better today than they did at the founding, as though the country has gone through some sort of moral enlightenment.” It’s hard to see how a decrease in the oppression of blacks, women, and homosexuals and an increase in equality for these groups is connected to moral relativism. Are you saying that the morality of oppressing blacks or women or homosexuals is relative? Help me out here. And, yes, I would argue that… Read more »
It was no accident that the founders described human equality as self evident and that our rights our derived from the creator. This is the basis for individual liberty and the consent of the governed.
The oppression of minorities, women, and homosexuals is in direct violation of this foundational principle.
Progressives are constantly using sliding scales of morality, convincing themselves and us that ethical standards can change with the culture and personal preference. They are forever moving the goal post of equality while deciding who is more equal than others. It’s all relative.
You say this: “Progressives . . . are forever moving the goal post of equality while deciding who is more equal than others. It’s all relative.”
What do you mean by “moving the goalposts of equality”? This is an odd phrase. Also, I don’t see equality and moral relativism as being connected. Can you elaborate a bit?
Do you think that race baiters like Sharpton and the progressive left in general, have an objective standard of equality that they hope to achieve? I don’t. That’s what I mean by constantly moving the goal posts. The nation was founded on God’s moral law. Do we all love our neighbors as ourselves? Of course not, but that is because we are flawed, not the standard. When we trample the Constitution, toss the Ten Commandments from our schools and court houses, and trust our own “moral imaginations” there will never be equality. How can there be? I’m still unclear about… Read more »
Hmm. I’m still not sure I understand where you’re going with this. You are claiming that Progressives have a subjective rather than objective standard of equality, but what is subjective about ALL men being created equal? Are Progressives abusing this somehow? Can you give me a specific example? Thanks. As far as my reference to Kierkegaard, I brought it up to make a point about faith and how each man’s faith is really his own business. In that regard, the tendency of Christians to judge one another is problematic. There is at least a possibility, if Kierkegaard is correct, that… Read more »
Yes, I’m saying that anyone who rejects God as an absolute moral authority has no basis to say that all men are created equal as an objective standard. Beyond the obvious question; created by whom? The idea that all men are equal is merely subjective. As for the Ten Commandments, yes we all know it is wrong to murder steal etc. They were not only written in stone they were written on our hearts. Displaying them in our schools and courthouses is not so much a reminder of the laws but who wrote them. Those who want to remove them… Read more »
FYI,
Another interesting example of “deeply personal faith” came up in my daily reading. The account in Mathew 1 of Mary’s pregnancy and how the Holy Spirit persuaded Joseph.
There is a quality about God that is more real than our reality. It is that quality which enables men like Joseph or Abraham to act as they do.
Notice the consistency in both accounts. They both point to Him and His sovereignty and His holiness. There is nothing ‘hidden’ about it. They are ordinary men encountering our extra-ordinary God.
hth.
Agreed. Joseph and Mary both have a deeply personal faith. However, Joseph’s case is different than Abraham’s. Joseph is not being tested–at least the text does not identify it as a test in the same way it does with Abraham. Joseph is not asked to do something that is against the ethics of his faith community, because the Spirit tells him that Mary’s pregnancy is from the Spirit. Joseph knows Mary is still a virgin. Abraham does not know that he will not have to kill his son. He doesn’t know that God will provide or that God might raise… Read more »
Hi Spike, Those are some good distinctions. Joseph set out to quietly ‘divorce’ Mary before the Holy Spirit intervened. That period between finding out Mary was pregnant and the Holy Spirit must have been very troubling. But here is the point; the presence of the Holy Spirit and the knowledge that it was God speaking is the same knowledge Abraham had. The quality of the encounter with God (not the actions asked) is the same. Have you ever had a run-in with God? I am not talking about a ‘leap of faith’, but an honest, real encounter that was unmistakable… Read more »
Yes I have. But I’ve never had an experience that I would equate with the ones Joseph, Mary, or Abraham have had. No audible voices or appearances of angels. Not sure where you’re going with this though. I’ve lost your argument somewhere along the way.
-it is just him and his Creator. iIt is impossible for others to judge Abraham from the outside, because they don’t know what he is experiencing, because what would be sin for others is no longer sin for him. Couple of points here. If after God stayed Abraham’s hand and he slayed Isaac, then it would be murder. Still sin. Kierkegaard gets this wrong. There is a quality to God that we sense–there is a reason every time an angel meets a man, Scripture records it saying “be not afraid”. An eternal being is more than we are and when… Read more »
“Homosexual behavior is not a fruit of the Spirit. So, in general, we can know a man’s internal life quite a bit.” You are correct. There are only seven fruits of the Spirit, and homosexuality is not one of them. But neither is heterosexuality. Is it impossible for a homosexual to exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control? I am not trying to draw a wall around all things that should be criticized. In fact, even in terms of my example of Abraham, if a friend of mine told me God commanded him to kill his son, I… Read more »
If someone professes to believe in Christ and shows the fruits of the Spirit, but also happens to be a homosexual, I am not going to judge that person’s faith. God acts on their faith and the action of God–sanctification–results in something different. The spirit of the day says our sins are fixed and God does not do as He says–especially, of late–in the sin of homosexuality. When I profess to believe in Christ on day 0 and show the fruits of the spirit and also happen to be used to sleeping around , I will (and have) sin(ed) and… Read more »
Timothy, the devils in Hell believe Christ exists, but they don’t call him Lord. I’m not talking about denying Christ as Lord. The only doctrine that I’m trying to defend is Romans 10:9: That if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Faith hinges on one thing: do you believe in the Son of Man? The man born blind asks Jesus “Who is he, that I may believe?” Jesus reveals himself and the man says “Lord, I believe.” Case closed. There are… Read more »
I’ve approached the issues of homosexuality and of same-sex marriage with fear and trembling. What it comes down to for me, is this: if there are two errors I may fall into – 1 – failing to call sin, sin 2 – chasing someone away from the Cross when Jesus wants to welcome them – I think I am far better off erring on the side of 1. The thought that I might ever be guilty of 2 scares the hell out of me. Let God condemn whom He will, and have mercy on whom He will. I don’t believe… Read more »
timothy, First of all, good catch: (You appear to have a specific doctrine in mind that you are trying to defend obliquely instead of head-on. Please make your case in affirmative terms instead of chiseling around the edges of mine.) Second, and more radical (as in the root of the issue), is that sooner or later you will hear their primary shibboleth: sex. It is at the root of both the abortion and sodomy symbiosis. It is the element that sets their hair on fire, regardless of how many disingenuous layers are used to obfuscate. The goal of that is… Read more »
Hi RFB Thanks. I am trying to remember what it was like to be driven by my lust. The “symptoms” that homosexuals all put forward are the same I had–I couldn’t help it, I was made this way, etc. I do know that it was something I could not overcome. Yet, somehow, I felt shame and I think the root of that shame is the fact that God made women. Since He made them, He loves them and to use someone against the divine order always crept into the act. It was still wrong. I can give every example Spike… Read more »
here is a bad haiku:
“If a man is alone in the forest…
And no woman can hear him…
Is he still wrong…”
;)
Oh, and one last thing: the notion that the people of the US and its government are any more sinful now than they were 200 years ago is foolish. People are people, and humans have not changed in 50,000 years. The people of the US are just as sinful now as they were when they first landed here. What has changed is that people are now sinning in ways that you are uncomfortable with. And some people are saying some of those things aren’t actually sins at all. But so what? A sin is a sin, and America has been… Read more »
I don’t agree completely, but I do absolutely agree that people are no more (and definitely not less) sinful now than before. To think otherwise seems more than a bit arrogant.
Could you flesh this out more? Are all societies in all time periods equally sinful? I think you find scriptural evidence to the contrary.
I said people, not societies. There are times when societies are more likely to call particular kinds of evil good, and that is definite increase in wickedness. But men are no more hellbound because of that.
Right. Human nature doesn’t change. Pride is pride, though it will manifest differently in different times and places.
Ask ashv how much behavior he finds sinful he would be willing to tolerate in his Jeffersonian corner of Alabama. Better yet, ask him what, say, NJ, NH, or ND is allowed to tolerate up there in his concept of America which he would not tolerate in AL. BTW, why are there states? Why was the original design of the gummit that the national one would be of limited and enumerated powers while the states could do anything not prohibited to them? BTW #2, “limited” does NOT mean “weak.” It means “narrow.” Within that enumerated power, there’s practically nothing the… Read more »
This is un-biblical. See “Sanctification: process of” and “Debasement: process of” Sodom and Gomorrah where surrounded by other cites on the plain. For “some reason” that you find a mystery, God singled them out for destruction The book of Revelation describes differences in how God deals with various sinful churches. Peoples can, have and do become more or less sinful over time. The same process for nations exists. What you are arguing, Mr.,Pittard is that America is now better than it was. You will point to the usual SJW littany of racism,sexism, homophobia, guns, guts and glory, point and shriek… Read more »
I’m not saying that America is better than it was now. That’s absurd. What I am saying is that it is no worse than it was when it started. There is a big difference.
I will say that we live in a nation that certainly much more enjoyable for minorities, women, and homosexuals than it was 200 years ago. But is it less or more sinful? No.
Not exactly. As sin is a sin in a sense, but not in every sense. Scripture does not indicate that, nor does experience or intuition, neither of which should be entirely discounted. Certainly individuals can change, again we know this both from scripture and from experience. The greater danger for a society, which is made up of individuals, lies in it’s members collectively taking for granted that they are less sinful than people of other times and places.
So are you agreeing with me? When you say “The greater danger for a society, which is made up of individuals, lies in it’s members collectively taking for granted that they are less sinful than people of other times and places”, that shoe fits on the foot of many of the posters on this site, and on Doug himself. No one should believe they are any less sinful then anyone else. There seems to be a sense that there was once a morally superior religious group, government, society in the US and now things are worse. But, as you say,… Read more »
A threat from outside might strengthen a society. Pathologies arising within a society due to its own degeneracy do no strengthen a society.
I suppose that’s true. It’s what a person (or community) chooses to label as pathology that is the issue.
Almost as harsh as ” I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.”
or
“For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup
with foaming wine, well mixed,
and he pours out from it,
and all the wicked of the earth
shall drain it down to the dregs.”
Sure, but Jesus cracking open a can on sinners in the final judgement is a lot different than Doug advocating for “hard” leadership based on a parable from Jesus. If Jesus wants to wipe out sinners then so be it. But why revel in that? Why take pride in it? The fact remains that Doug is misapplying Scripture in this post, taking it out of context to support a notion of leadership that is not delineated in Scripture, even in Paul’s writing.
To be like Jesus means to love what He loves, and hating what He hates.
“The fact remains that Doug is misapplying Scripture in this post, taking
it out of context…”
Your opinion, not a “fact”.
“…to support a notion of leadership that is not
delineated in Scripture, even in Paul’s writing.”
You mean like when Paul says “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, God damn him…?
No, it’s a fact. One can not misapply Scripture and defend it by calling it opinion. Doug is misapplying the verse he uses in this post. It is not a matter of my opinion.
As to your last quote, please explain how it relates to this blog post and my criticism of Doug’s misapplication of Scripture to defend his own theories on headship. I’m not seeing the connection.
You misread the “hard leadership” teaching. Being a leader is hard work. It means making hard choices. Doing it right takes a man among men. No, do not sidetrack me into a feminist discussion.
It’s possible that I’m misreading what Doug is saying. But Doug is certainly misreading, or just misapplying, Luke 19:27. Being a leader can be hard work, no doubt. And leaders do have to make hard choices. Of course, what defines a “hard choice” and who is allowed to lead are issues connected with this. As to my original post, no one has been able to show me that Luke 19 actually has anything to do with leadership.
From Biblehub.com on the commentary section,here is one outtake: Luke 19:27. But those mine enemies, &c. — Having thus inquired into the conduct of his servants, and treated them according to the different use they made of what had been intrusted with them, he then proceeded to pass sentence on his rebellious citizens, who had refused to have him for their king; and with a just resentment of their base ingratitude, he commanded them to be brought thither immediately, and slain in his presence, that others might learn a more dutiful submission by the execution of these rebels. T Bold… Read more »
Timothy, nice cut and paste, but this is still skirting around the issue. You say this: “So a leader, with servants evaluates their work and then passes sentence on the people and commands them be killed. Sounds like some pretty difficult leadership decision making to me.” But this is not solid exegesis of this passage. If you read the commentary page on Biblehub.com, not a single one of the commentaries say anything about leadership. In fact, they all echo what I’ve already been saying: that the nobleman in this parable is Jesus, and 19:27 is an example of divine retribution… Read more »
Your analysis is ridiculous. A picture can contain more than one subject of interest and this one does as well.
Wilson’s point is that sometimes “hard decsions” exist. “Hard” is used in the sense of “severe” and “final” and NOT in the sense of “difficult” .
Using that story to illustrate that point is a totally legitimate use. There is no evasion here. It is straightforward and to the point. Its a shame you missed it in favor of your preconceptions.
Timothy, call my analysis ridiculous if you want, but you are the one that pointed to Biblehub to show your point. Does any one of those commentaries say anything about this passage pertaining to leadership? Sure, many stories and pictures have many valid interpretations. But not all interpretations are valid. What makes an interpretation valid? Evidence from the text. When it comes to exegesis of Scripture, we can not simply say that a text says something or teaches something that it doesn’t. When we do, we naturally distort. The parable is directed to the Disciples, and they are the “slaves”… Read more »
Two Things: 1) Soft servant leaders appear soft so soft sheep will follow. But cross the soft servant and he will become prickly quickly. 2) Truly soft servants run good businesses out of business quickly. It’s hard to prune without sharp shears.
With you on that. My experience has taught me that hard-asses and soft-asses are all the same when you cross or question them. Beware the out and out jerk, and the flattering man.
Love this! “When you fulfill your office, by taking responsibility, by making the final decision after much discussion, by providing for your wife, by protecting her and the children, you discover there is no way to do such things effectively without being hard. But a servant-leader is hard for his family. He is not hard on his family.” I know tons of guys who truly pride themselves in their self-sacrificial love for their wives by pointing to all the times they did the dishes and/or laundry for her. You know, because she was tired and wanted to spend a couple… Read more »
Well Mal, you are in trouble now.
I don’t know whether the accusations will be mala in se or mala prohibita, but…
“Others like to indicate that they always end up sleeping on the couch when there’s been an argument…because, self-sacrifice. Or they proudly give up on having sex more than once/month because she doesn’t feel like/is too tired/is still on Facebook/has a headache/he hurt her feelings…because, self-sacrifice.”
Wow. I just don’t even… Please tell me you correct these ‘men’ swiftly and violently.
“Or they proudly give up on having sex more than once/month because … he hurt her feelings” Can I just pull this out for comment? To hurt a person’s feelings, and then demand physical intimacy, is a bit much. For a lot of people, physical and emotional intimacy go hand in hand. Physical intimacy without emotional intimacy is what you could get from a prostitute, not your spouse. If you realize that something you are doing hurts your spouse’s feelings, you need to stop, unless that something is absolutely necessary. If it’s necessary, that won’t be happening often at all,… Read more »
Laura,
I completely agree with what you just said.
So, I’ll only give the “flip side,” which is that sometimes one’s “feelings” should be made to conform to truth because one’s “feelings” are lying. Sometimes the wife needs to be a wife despite how she feels about it/him, and sometimes the husband must sacrifice his own comfort and ease to help her sort this out.
Ditto what ashv said, in other words…
Right. I worry a little bit about the emphasis on husbands needing respect and wives needing love. If a man respects his wife, and she says “you shouldn’t say/do x because you are hurting my feelings,” then even though he didn’t mean to hurt her feelings, and he thinks that whatever it is wouldn’t hurt his, he accepts that it hurts hers, and so he stops. He doesn’t have to understand. He doesn’t have to agree. He just needs to accept that she has enough self-insight to understand that something is upsetting her, and enough respect for him to give… Read more »
If there were ever a controlling husband or wife in the world, and there is, then this sort of reasoning gives that controlling person license to sinfully and shamelessly control his or her spouse. In other words, if the rules of the game are: 1) I feel displeasure 2) if you respect me, then you must trust that my feelings are the best judge of the appropriateness of your actions 3) if my feelings tell me you did something wrong, then you must course correct how we can ever confront someone for being sinfully controlling? Generally speaking, this sort of… Read more »
Hopefully anyone with sense doesn’t marry such a wretched person. What I suspect happens far more often is this: The husband realizes that his wife, a new mother, is having trouble getting those last few pounds of pregnancy weight gain off. It doesn’t bother him at all – he likes her curves – but he sees that she is sensitive about it, and he thinks that’s funny. So he makes little comments about her porking up, or “put down the spoon” or whatever. In front of her friends, and his friends, and her family, and his family. She says to… Read more »
So you think there’s no hope for people with a tendency to sinfully attempt to control their spouses, and we should just abandon them and their victims?
I’m seeing option 2 from you.
If you get to dismiss Tim’s hypothetical without discussion, then I see no reason to attend to yours.
Then I’m baffled at the fact that you responded to my comment at all.
I merely wanted to see if you were as foolish as first impressions suggested.
Your avatar already completely revealed you for what you are.
I think we can safely go back to ignoring each other.
What’s it revealed me to be? A Christian with a love for family and history?
All Christians are controlling. We are selfish. We want what we want when we want it. We are often poor judges of our motives and desires (Jeremiah 17:9) and frequently put our actions, behaviors, and feelings in the best possible light and the actions of others in the worse possible light. Therefore, it is important to get counsel (Proverbs 20:5) and live transparent lives before other Christians, who will help us to examine our feelings in order to determine whether we are righteously offended or unrighteously offended. In the situation you mentioned, I believe that the husband should ask forgiveness… Read more »
“In other words, sometimes the best response to a wife telling her husband that she is offended is for the husband to ask forgiveness, other times the best response is for the husband to confront his wife for her controlling behavior.”
I can live with that.
But if he’s going to confront his wife for her controlling behavior, he’d better be extremely sure that that is the situation, not his sinful obstinance.
I said my piece with the assumption that both parties in the marriage are trying, in good faith, to be good partners.
“But if he’s going to confront his wife for her controlling behavior, he’d better be extremely sure that that is the situation, not his sinful obstinance.”
That goes both ways, correct? The offended party better be extremely sure that their offense is righteous before they confront their spouse for his or her insensitivity.
Of course.
If the offending spouse is so obtuse that he or she can’t figure it out on his or her own, chances are that the offended spouse hesitates before saying anything anyway, because the offending spouse could very well just double down on the behavior. I’ve seen this.
There is a flaw in your hypothetical Mrs. Laura. A loving husband that sees his wife is sensitive about her weight would not normally make jokes about it. He may make a stupid remark without thinking and then it is his job to apologize (in this scenario) but he will not intentionally make “jokes” or “comments” in front of friends, family, etc… I will go with option 3 “Explain that she is beautiful and he likes her curves and get in the grill of anyone that is a big enough jerk to try to mess with her about it.” (Yup… Read more »
Have you never seen people who love their spouses, nevertheless tease them when they don’t appreciate it? And I’m being gender-nonspecific here b/c I’ve seen women do it. Actually, what I’ve seen is men doing it out of obliviousness, and women doing it out of masked anger.
Jonathan, You make an important clarification: a loving husband would not tease his wife about a sensitive issue. You provide an third option, which is certainly a needed additive to Laura’s short list of two. I would like to provide a 4th: Compliment her beauty as a new mother, assist her with the new duties of child rearing, and exercise patience as she deals with a whacked-out schedule and a body that doesn’t look as she desires. And THEN…after many months have elapsed and she has given up on ever losing those pounds, instead becoming content with her ample roundness,… Read more »
I am just one person. Data point of one, here. I weighed 108 pounds all through my twenties, except when I was pregnant, and topped out at 131. By 12 weeks postpartum, i was back down to 108. I’m 5’5″, so if you are thinking “skinny as a piece of string” you’d be about right. Eventually as I aged, the weight started to come on, so that I am now around 135 all the time. I am stronger now than I was in my twenties, have more stamina, get sick less often. Sometimes that weight doesn’t need to come off.… Read more »
Obviously, every situation will differ as every woman (and man) is different, and the notion of weight loss will also differ. In the hypothetical you gave, the wife was struggling with losing pounds, so I presumed that she was bothered by her weight. He certainly has many options, none of which include teasing her about it in public. The godly husband will not require his wife to lose weight because he selfishly desires a supermodel athlete. That’s moronic…and NOT godly. But the godly husband just might require his wife to lose weight because she is unhealthy, or because she has… Read more »
Probably. What I’d rather see is for the husband to encourage and enable his wife to adopt a healthy diet and lifestyle. If she’s having trouble getting to the grocery store, or cooking, or exercising, because she’s too busy with childcare, obviously there is an opportunity for him to help. If she’s bringing home cookies and such, he could say that no one really needs that and it would be better not to have it in the house. (And that’s completely true, for the kids as well.) Sometimes people do everything right and the weight just is what it is.… Read more »
There’s no such thing as “one size fits all,” is there? :-)
The conversation changes considerably depending on each person’s attitude, body type, and the total weight in question. Suffice it to say that it requires wisdom of both husband and wife, and as with all other marital topics, it’s a dance–crediting katecho for that.
There really is no such thing.
I think you can address people’s behaviors. I don’t think you can really address their size. They may or may not have control over their size. If they do, it’s the behaviors that make a difference, anyway. If you focus on the weight that needs to come off, then what you are saying is “your body is not acceptable to me.” Nobody needs to hear that.
and again. how do you propose to go about this requiring you speak of? i really am not sure i want to know but I’m feeling reckless.
this is such crap but i must be growing calloused bc all i can do is laugh, and laugh and laugh some more. I can’t even get a decent outrage worked up.Funny, funny people…
and how praytell do you propose to go about conforming them? you know what..nevermind.
For a husband to hurt his wife’s feelings and then salve his conscience by giving up on physical intimacy, rather than seeking to heal their relationship, is the greater sin.
HaAHAHAHA oh lord…have mercy….
But don’t you ever have anything to say to the child? Like, grow-up already!? Might you, as a grown up woman, sometimes make that point to the overgrown little girls? Honestly, if I saw grown women doing that more often, instead of commiserating with the “hurt” it would go far with me.
What do you want the outcome to be?
Let’s say that your wife pouts all the time for no good reason that you can see, and you have honestly examined your behavior, and her complaints, and there’s just no substance. Maybe she’s “not happy” and she can’t really articulate anything that you can change. Maybe she has unreasonable expectations of life.
Do you think “grow up already” is really going to solve any problems? I don’t.
Well, perhaps a verbal smack-down isn’t the best way to handle an emotional waif; however, something clearly must be done in this case, and the servant-leader must sacrifice his own comfort and ease by creating a little conflict…with the purposed goal of advancing his wife’s godliness, maturity, and internal fortitude. She’ll probably cry, but that’s beside the point if his firm instruction is what she needs. Others–especially other feelings-driven women–will call him overbearing, callous, chauvinistic, or even–gasp!–complementarian, but that’s some of the sacrificing he’s called to make. The outcome, to answer your question, should be the sanctification of the wife… Read more »
What if it’s the husband? He’s never satisfied with her demeanor, always communicating that she’s not respectful enough and so on, because his own expectations aren’t reasonable. What should the wife do?
Husbands are just as capable of unloving and wrong behavior as wives. It needs to be worked out together where possible, however, husbands are under authority too. If it’s a matter of sin, she can appeal to the elders of the church for his correction. If it is a matter of crime, she can appeal to the civil magistrate for protection.
I think that within a marriage, either spouse has both the right and the duty to offer loving correction where needed.
Parents are just as capable of unloving and wrong behavior as children. Do children have a blanket right and duty to correct parents, where needed? Regardless of whether parents need that correction, what does it look like when a child takes it on themselves to correct their parents? What does it look like when a young man rebukes his elders? Marriage is a picture of something. It is a picture of Christ and the Church. Husbands are modeling Christ, and wives are modeling the Church, as bride. Even as believers we are fallen, and our model will necessarily reveal flaws,… Read more »
A – My daughter had my permission to say “Mommy, you’re not being fair” and things of that nature, as long she was respectful about it. I knew I wasn’t infallible. Jesus is, of course – what could the Church ever correct him for? B – I have a daddy, and my husband isn’t him. My husband has a daughter, and I’m not her. C – If a person has a problem with their spouse, they need to first try to correct it within the marriage before going to the outside. If my husband had a problem with me, and… Read more »
I’m not seeing how “wives submit to your own husbands” is being modeled in any of Laura’s options. I’m not seeing any distinction at all between husband and wife in those options. I just see “spouse”. Granting that we are all members of the Church, and that we are all called to model Christ as individuals, I’d be curious if Laura could outline in what ways a wife distinctly models the Church in the marriage relationship. In what way is a wife not to be confused with trying to model Christ, as Head, in that particular relationship? This is what… Read more »
Given that you understand that it’s egalitarian, I don’t know why you expect to see a distinction.
Still, if your wife was unhappy and thought you were being unfair and unkind, would you want her to tell you so the two of you could talk it out? Or would that not be submissive, and she should go to the church elders instead?
Laura didn’t answer my question. Perhaps she rejects the very idea that husbands and wives are modeling two different roles in the marriage relationship.
As to her question, I already said that when we break character in a marriage relationship, we are to try to restore character by working it out together. Elders and civil magistrate are only involved when that also fails.
I did answer your question. Let me invite you to read my comment again. I’m not a complementarian.
I am confused though – is it, or is it not, appropriate for the wife in your worldview to let her husband know when she believes she has a grievance?
Regarding grievances, offenses, failures, etc, either spouse can break character in the marriage. When that happens the two are to work to resolve it. That necessarily involves communication of differences. But the goal of this communication is to restore character, not to reverse character (as if to model the Church correcting Christ). However, we seem to have come to the point of the rub. Laura seems to be of the notion that husbands and wives have identical, symmetrical, interchangeable roles in the marriage relationship. Scripture is very clear on the distinction of roles: Wives, be subject to your own husbands,… Read more »
Should I clarify in first person, or in third person?
I would hope that Laura is eager to clarify herself in first, second, third and fouth person.
Cool.
Social cause-and-effect here: when you do this, it feels to me like I am standing in front of you, talking to you, and you are ignoring me and talking about me to other people. It feels as if you are trying to put me on the defensive, or rally the group to oppose me.
At this point, Laura should very much feel that she is on the defensive.
Then katecho is on the attack. Thanks for spelling that out. I don’t feel like fighting, if it’s all the same to you.
So no clarification from Laura? That’s unfortunate for her. I have to conclude that she prefers an interchangeable egalitarian view of marriage that is simply out of accord with Scripture on the distinct roles of husband/Christ/head and wife/Church/body in the marriage relationship.
–>(
That’s my cheek turning.
I think repentance from an unscriptural view of marriage would be more in order.
–>(
love it.
Apparently Laura views disagreement as equivalent to violence.
Apparently ashv, who stands in solidarity with Dylan Roof, (for you adopted this avatar when he performed his act of racial hatred, prompting the removal by decent folks of that symbol of black oppression,) doesn’t understand that when you expressedly put someone on defensive, when you say “en garde” so to speak, what follows is a verbal slap.
There are evidently volumes that ashv doesn’t understand.
If you can’t distinguish between disagreement and violence you’re part of the problem Pastor Wilson is discussing. Also, you’re fat.
Dylan Roof? For someone who supposedly has something against slapping, Laura sure serves them out liberally here. Is it the best model of feminism to complain about being slapped while engaging in slapping? Doesn’t feminism insist that it can handle equal heat in the kitchen, with no need of the fainting couch and the smelling salts? It seems that Laura is doing a flop in front of the referee in hopes of drawing a foul. Is this really the face of feminism? It looks like everything feminism is supposed to be rejecting in weak sisters. I’m just not seeing any… Read more »
Any time you’re ready to stop fighting and have a conversation, just let me know. If all you want to do is explain how I’m wrong and bad, I will continue to decline to participate.
My ability to point out what is right or wrong in Laura’s view of marital roles doesn’t require her permission, or her participation. I was hoping that she would stop the swooning and couch fainting exercises, and the hypocritical slapping at others. That’s up to her though. I think what is most important is that she address the substance of her disagreement with Scripture on the distinct roles that are to be modeled in marriage. She doesn’t seem interested in the substance at this point, but in accusing others of attacking her. Whether she wants to or not, she is… Read more »
“accusing others of attacking her”
Are you that obtuse, really? When you told me your intention was to put me on the defensive, what on earth was I to understand from that, but that you were attacking me? Why would a person be defensive if they weren’t being attacked?
And now you’re pretending that you didn’t say that? Do you think people can’t read?
For Pete’s sake. Wow. Please try to grow some integrity.
It’s telling that Laura is unable to quote me ever saying that my intent is to attack her.
I’m imagining Laura, standing before her profs, about to defend her senior thesis in feminist studies, and then a strange expression washes over her face and, suddenly, she runs out of the room, screaming, “they’re attacking me! I’m being attacked, I say!”
She has the nerve to tell me to grow some integrity? Is this the sort of feminism she is advocating?
katecho • a day ago
At this point, Laura should very much feel that she is on the defensive.
Notice that the word “attack” appears nowhere in that quote.
Are you that stupid.
What does a person defend from, if not an attack. You intended to put me on the defensive and now you are denying attack.
You were the little kid poking your classmate and then innocently telling the teacher “I didn’t do anything!” And you never grew up.
Perhaps Laura really isn’t familiar with higher education, and the concept of defending a senior thesis. That illustration seemed to fly right past her.
Update: Apparently, Laura is familiar with higher education, and has earned an advanced degree. So I assume she’s actually had to defend a thesis before faculty members. Did she cop this “attacked” attitude with them? If not, why not? If not for emotional manipulation effects, why the sudden display of wilting weakness here? I thought feminism rejected that tactic.
In any case, I’m not intimidated by Laura’s flops for the camera. Scripture says we are to be ready to give a defense for the hope in us, not ready to whine, and flop, and accuse, and run away from a defense.
What is increasingly clear to me is that Laura doesn’t want to reconcile her views with Scripture. She’s had plenty of opportunity to do so. I invite her to get back on track with the Scriptural substance, assuming she cares that her views are consistent with Scripture.
He’s simply showing he has been paying close attention to Dougs lessons.
My ability to point out what is right or wrong in Laura’s view of marital roles doesn’t require her permission, or her participation. ”
much like your own spousal intimacy i imagine.
trust me laura it’s not just a feeling.
Laura wrote:
Wait a minute, if this is a “right and duty” to be able to offer corrections, why does Laura’s daughter need permission from anyone? Or is Laura saying that husbands should first give their wife permission to correct them? This “rights” thing is a tricky business.
I’m not going to fight you. If you want to keep slapping, you’ll slap by yourself. If you decide to stand down the hostilities, and have a conversation, let me know.
There you go again, always egging folks on with disingenuousness and subtle, evasive avoidences, then portraying yourself as the victim in order to set up a falsely magnanimous disegagement from the substance of the conversation.
If you really thought that, you wouldn’t engage.
Why so? There’s no contradiction in there. I’m saying that about you, not me.
Are you seriously saying that you seek out discussion with such a reprehensible person as you describe? You hit yourself in the head with a hammer, too, just because?
Haha! No, I’m not doing *that*. I’m just passing by, commenting on the lay of the land of this thread.
A drive-by, then. Carry on.
bingo.
Stuff like that. I never see it until its pointed out to me. Thanks.
Katecho, I’m not following you here. Are you implying the husband-wife relationship is analogous to the parent-child relationship? Are you saying a wife ought never help her husband by correcting him when he is in sin? Surely one can both offer correction and honor at the same time?
[edit: Are you using the word “correct” as synonymous with discipline, perhaps?]
katie wrote: Are you implying the husband-wife relationship is analogous to the parent-child relationship? Are you saying a wife ought never help her husband by correcting him when he is in sin? Surely one can both offer correction and honor at the same time? No, my point in mentioning the parent-child relationship was to challenge Laura’s egalitarian assumption about roles within the family. But Laura seemed to just swallow the reductio by explaining that she has empowered her own daughter to correct her as a parent. She wasn’t willing to just concede different headship/submission roles even between parent and children.… Read more »
Ok, thanks. How would you describe the man’s needing the woman, and her being his helper, as being “in character” as described by Ephesians?
Any metaphor can break down when pressed too far, and we should be careful in what we mean by “need”. Did God need creation? Did Christ need a Bride? God certainly said that it was not good that man be alone, but was that because of an innate need in Adam that was not being supplied by God, or was the aloneness not good because of the greater purpose that God had for Adam (thus a need external from Adam himself)? Given the above, I’m okay suggesting that Christ needs a Bride in certain senses, but not in others. Christ… Read more »
Oh that’s fabulous. So if we’re thinking of the Eph roles as being “in character,” a wife breaks character as the church when correcting when the husband breaks character as Christ when sinning.
Yes. And the goal is to get back into character again quickly, because we know what God intended for marriage to testify in the world. Marriage is meant to testify of a beautiful relationship of headship and submission. As individuals, all believers are in the submission role, as the body of Christ. But in marriage, a husband and wife get to model even deeper aspects of this glorious relationship. Leadership and responsibility for others is hard, but God has built husbands for this role. Submission to a sinful likeness of Christ is hard, but God has built wives to be… Read more »
This comment, and others before it that you have made, katecho, paint a very beautiful picture of a godly marriage. I would love to have these comments in a 4-pg pamphlet to distribute amongst all the young couples I know…AND to read every night before turning out the lights.
Thank you for this delightful and inspiring read…
Thanks for the kind words.
katecho 2016!
“This is an attitude and fierce loyalty that, when truly and joyfully owned by a wife, can astonish and break a husband’s heart in pieces, and make him ten times the man that he ever thought he could be. Selflessness isn’t such a problem when you have this kind of loyalty at your back.”
Thank you for this. Very edifying.
it’s usually the most morally decrepit who are most encouraged and emboldened by the kind of wifely attitude you describe.
Hi, Katecho. I was looking for an earlier comment of yours in which you likened the complementarian marriage to a dance. I like this analogy because it focuses on roles rather than individuals. I could dance like Anna Pavlova, but if I engage in a traditional waltz, I am going to be dancing backwards most of the time. I think where people can run into trouble is when they try to assign the roles to innate abilities. A woman may find submission much easier if she does not have to convince herself that her husband is generally smarter and more… Read more »
In a fallen world, we aren’t as good at these distinct roles as we could be. Husbands may be really poor at it, but they are no less husbands. Parents may not be very good at their role, but they are still parents. God mercifully meets us where we are, not where we should be. The question is whether we’re going to kick against the roles that He has defined, or submit to His design and purpose in those roles. Conscious obedience starts with submission to God before submission to husband, or government, or pastor, or parent. There are going… Read more »
I have seen this myself. Where the husband adored his brilliant wife, and the wife adored her grounded, practical husband. I agree with you that it is all in the will.
“I can’t believe this kind of charade is pleasing to God.” Sometimes what I see expounded as God’s plan for marriage looks like kabuki theatre. If I ask my husband to put his dishes in the sink, and he does; and if he asks me to lock the garage door when I come in, and I do; somehow we have to call his putting his dishes “loving” and my locking the door “submitting”. Because to let there be any implication of reciprocity or symmetry would be unbiblical. And I think that’s silly, actually. Further, if he has a strength relative… Read more »
“This all seems very forced.”
It does seem that way, but I think it’s because we don’t naturally want to do things God’s way. In fact, I often find I have to force myself to conform myself to God’s way, but that’s because I’m broken, not because God’s way is broken. My 2 cents for what it’s worth. :)
Or in other words, if God says ‘such and such’ a way is good, then it’s good whether we have to force ourselves to do it or not.
Does God forbid husbands from submitting to their wives?
I’ve never seen an explicit command in the Scriptures that forbids husbands from submitting to their wives.
Neither have I.
Are suggesting suggesting we can infer positive commands from the lack of any prohibition of said command in scripture? I hope you agree that that would lead to all sorts of interpretive problems in the scriptures.
Personally I prefer this method of interpretation:
“IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” from WCF chapter 1
“Are suggesting suggesting we can infer positive commands from the lack of any prohibition of said command in scripture?”
No, not at all.
Between “commanded” and “forbidden” there is a huge middle ground of “you can if you want to”. That’s where freedom lies.
But actually, Christians are commanded to submit to one another.
“Between “commanded” and “forbidden” there is a huge middle ground of “you can if you want to”. That’s where freedom lies.” I’ll not derail this thread with a discussion about the ‘regulative principle’. :) Besides, arguing for it is way above my pay grade. “But actually, Christians are commanded to submit to one another.” I think this has been gone over extensively in a different thread so I guess there’s no need to rehash that here. Again, way above my pay grade. I am content with ‘Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church…’ and ‘Wives submit to your… Read more »
I looked up “regulative principle” and it just doesn’t resonate with me. If I have a choice between eating a carrot stick or a piece of broccoli, I think it is a matter of supreme indifference to Almighty God which one I pick. Everything doesn’t have to be nailed down. Let me mention that I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, which at the time had a concept called soul competency. That is, that an individual Christian can read the Bible and figure out what it says with the help of the Holy Spirit. Obviously anyone can leave the… Read more »
Thanks for your thoughts. Like I said, this has been thoroughly hashed out in a different thread(Grecian-Roman particle Milieu I think?) I would point you to that thread if you want to go over all the interpretive stuff again.
Glad I could introduce you to the regulative principle. :)
Mrs. Laura I want to approach the authority issue from another angle if you will (and if this approach has already come up I am sorry I missed it I have not read all of the last couple of threads.) Correct me if I am wrong here but I believe you hold that the husband does not have authority over the wife but each should submit to the other (i.e. both have authority over each other or there is not any authority within the marriage). Given that what do we make of the qualifications for Elders and Deacons? The man… Read more »
“when we realize that a man can also be disqualified from office because of his wife.”
Are you getting this from 1 Tim. 3:11? Because it appears that it’s not clear whether this text refers to deacons’ wives, or to women who are deacons. Apparently the Greek word could go either way. Phoebe was a deacon, so clearly a woman could be.
…And for a fuller response to your comment: ” I believe you hold that the husband does not have authority over the wife but each should submit to the other (i.e. both have authority over each other or there is not any authority within the marriage).” Correct. As to why a person might be disqualified due to a disorderly household, even if some of the disorder is out of their control: Look at Titus 2 and the reasons given for the household guidelines: “so that the word of God will not be dishonored”; “so that the opponent [of the faith]… Read more »
Keep in mind it’s the regulative principle of worship. In life in general, we are certainly permitted to do that which is not commanded, provided it does not involve sin by omission, commission, or intention.
If that were not true, this blog could not exist, right?
Right, I wasn’t very clear on that, sorry. I was trying to get at the idea that undergirds that (in response to Laura’s question about husbands being forbidden to submit to their wives) : “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” Obviously I didn’t think husbands submitting to their wives… Read more »
Right, I got that, but since the concept is apparently unfamiliar to Laura, the lack of distinction was probably a bit confusing.
The little bit of looking that I did had some sources confining this to worship, and others extrapolating to life in general.
I’m not really sure it’s God’s way to label the exact same correct behavior differently because the actor is male, than it would be if the actor is female. I just don’t see any support for that in the Bible, and it doesn’t make logical sense. I don’t see wifely submission as being an essential underpinning of the entire edifice of God’s plan for humanity. I think God is much more concerned that we treat each other right, and that we love each other (as he has told us over and over.) There is an unloving thing that people can… Read more »
“I’m not really sure it’s God’s way to label the exact same correct behavior differently because the actor is male, than it would be if the actor is female. I just don’t see any support for that in the Bible, and it doesn’t make logical sense.” I was speaking more in a general sense. “I don’t see wifely submission as being an essential underpinning of the entire edifice of God’s plan for humanity.” I disagree, but I’ll just point you Katecho’s explanation of that since I can’t argue for it better than he can. “There is an unloving thing that… Read more »
Long term? Beyond exhausting, impractical and ridiculous not to mention toxic.
It is toxic. Sometimes the woman is going to lead. If she has to sneak around to do it, and lead by manipulation, that trains her to be deceptive. Passive-aggressive. We shouldn’t want that for each other.
sick, sick sick.
good luck w that goodwife.
**crickets****
I believe it is sometimes helpful to appeal to the other person as if he or she already possessed the quality you are hoping to see. “It is a great comfort to me to know I can depend on you to be strong through this.” “I am so proud to know that, whatever happens, you will behave honorably.”
Oh, that is huge.
you can’t make this stuff up.
It might. Especially coming from the right people. Like other women. Especially older women, who are supposed to instruct the younger. It would certainly be better than other women affirming the pouting and unreasonableness. In any case, sometimes “you need to grow up” is just the truth, and if there were no other outcome consider the possibility that men will be more inclined to listen to what you want them to hear if they hear you telling other women the truth.
One of the problems with “you need to grow up” is that the person on the receiving end will perceive this as an attack on their character, and won’t be open to hearing anything else. Another is that it is not specific enough to do any good. For instance: The husband, if we’re saying that it’s the wife who needs correction, could turn this around and express that when he perceives that no matter what he does, she’s not happy, he feels that he can’t please her, and it causes him to feel inadequate as a husband and a man.… Read more »
Some characters need blunt force therapy. Men are on the receiving end of it all the time, figuratively, as I mean here, and sometimes literally. If you need to be specific, be specific as to what exactly she is doing that indicates immaturity, but don’t flinch from calling childishness what it is. Whatever you do, don’t sympathize with it. Ask yourself honestly now, if it were the other way around, and a husband was pouty and unreasonable, hurt and angry at every step, and giving his wife the cold shoulder, would you tell the wife “Well you did marry a… Read more »
“Men are on the receiving end of it all the time, figuratively, as I mean here, and sometimes literally.”
How effective is it?
“”Well you did marry a little boy. Deal with it”. But don’t let’s say anything to him about his behavior”. ?”
That actually is not what I said. Of course you address the behavior. But “you’re acting like a child” isn’t the way to do it It’s hurtful and it won’t solve the problem.
Effective often enough to justify it’s use. When a male is confronted with the fact that other people see him as a crybaby and not a man he has motivation to change. Especially if he is made to understand there are consequences, like being dismissed by other men, or, like, “you’re not the person we would entrust with responsibility”, or, “the woman isn’t going to put up with that nonsense forever”. Now if it doesn’t work the same for women then maybe that points to one of the inherent differences between males and females that feminism tries so hard to… Read more »
“When you’re the one behaving badly nobody owes it to you to make it feel all better.”
I think you and I have very different ideas about what it means to love someone.
We do if you think not hurting feelings is all that counts.
Sometimes people behaving badly don’t know better and they need to be taught. Sometimes they are lashing out of their own pain and they need to be healed. Regardless, one’s motive can’t be to hurt their feelings. At most that is an unavoidable byproduct.
Fair enough. Hurt feelings are not the aim per se, but they are not something to be avoided at all costs. Lashing out of one’s own anger, disappointment, and frustration, heedless of the effect on other people, is what little children do, until they grow a little and are taught better. Until they learn there are consequences to themselves, among other things. Sometimes the hard way. Or they don’t, then we get children in adult bodies, like the hypothetical examples we’ve been discussing. Being in pain doesn’t give me the right to be a pain. Grown up women ought to… Read more »
I believe “be a woman” can mean “show some character” in the same way as “be a man”. Why not? THANK YOU. I’ve struggled for a while to understand what we mean when we say “manly” and so forth, because any attribute that I can come up with, that describes a real man, or a manly man, is something that a woman ought to aspire to as well. And any attribute that you don’t want to see in a woman, for instance, aggressiveness when it’s not necessary, I find that it’s not something you really want in a man either.… Read more »
If you are withholding physical intimacy because of hurt feelings you are using sex as a tool to manipulate your husband. I realize that you are in a situation where you don’t depend on your husband for physical protection or material provision but what would you think of a husband withholding those things due to hurt feelings.
Hm. We are looking at the same phenomenon from two different sides and seeing two different things. I don’t have this problem, because my husband doesn’t hurt my feelings. I’m not talking about me at all. But it’s interesting that you take my point of a man thinking that he can hurt his wife’s feelings and then be surprised that she doesn’t seek physical intimacy, and turn that around to her punishing him by not just turning off her tender wifely feelings and offering her body like a prostitute that doesn’t have any. Sex is an outgrowth and expression of… Read more »
There’s some scripture on this but I know you’ve said that if you had to accept the parts you don’t like you’d rather be an atheist. So you haven’t answered my question. Should I withhold provision or protection if I’m not feelin it? A woman has rights and a man has duties, I suppose? Also you seem to think the difference between the sex of a husband and a wife and the sex of a prostitute and a john is defined by the emotional state of the wife. Interesting take on things.
“you’ve said that if you had to accept the parts you don’t like you’d rather be an atheist.” Huh? “A woman has rights and a man has duties, I suppose?” You suppose wrong. “Also you seem to think the difference between the sex of a husband and a wife and the sex of a prostitute and a john is defined by the emotional state of the wife.” It is a huge difference, yes. I am stunned that you are surprised at this. “Should I withhold provision or protection if I’m not feelin it?” If your wife said rude and cutting… Read more »
Malachi,
1. You say, “When the job is hard, the man must get tough and take the lumps”. Can you give me a practical, real-world example of a “hard job” a man must do?
2. You say, “The truth could be that the wife really needs to roll up her sleeves despite how she feels, and a leader recognizes this and makes it happen.” Can you give me a practical, real world example of how this works? How does a man “make this happen”?
Thanks.
Sure… 1. When it becomes apparent that the family is suffering because each of the three kids is off doing their disparate extra-curricular activities and the mother/wife is running herself ragged with the chauffeuring and the house is neglected…the “hard job” of counseling his family to limit these activities (or doing it himself when they can’t/won’t) is thrust upon the servant-leader. He must get tough for the sake of the family, and he’ll take a few lumps from various others who don’t understand why Johnny can’t play basketball anymore…or why Wifey is “made to stay at home and clean house.”… Read more »
I see. It seems to me from your post that you are ascribing cultural gender roles to Scripture. Let’s say that we are meant to take Paul’s writings on marriage literally. He speaks of headship, submission, loving, etc. But where does Paul say it is the woman’s job to make sure the house is clean? This is a culturally established gender role. Why is it her job and not yours to clean the house or chauffeur the kids to activities? As for example number 2, if the “it” can include sexual intimacy, then there are some serious problems with the… Read more »
Well, I see that you have some basic trouble with examples. That will certainly put a damper on any further discussion.
Come on. That is a cop out of a response. Can you deal with my questions? Where is the evidence in Scripture that says it is the husband’s job to demand that his wife does not deny him? And where does Scripture define the exact gender roles that you lay out?
These seem like questions you would be able to answer. If difficult questions put a “damper” on discussions, then that does not speak well to the strength of your beliefs.
When you ask “Can you give me a practical, real-world example of a “hard job” a man must do?” and I respond with “When it becomes apparent that the family is suffering … the “hard job” of counseling his family to limit … activities … is thrust upon the servant-leader” and then you say “where does Paul say it is the woman’s job to make sure the house is clean” — it seems fairly obvious that you struggle with this sort of conversation. I don’t really want to waste time with someone who is going to shoot from the hip… Read more »
I didn’t think a request for some Scripture verses to back up your ideas would be such an unreasonable thing to ask for. It’s true that I struggle with the views you hold, but do you only discuss things with those that agree with you? Why back down from me if my ideas are so hare-brained? My questions should be easy to answer, my positions easy to shoot down. Can you not provide even ONE bit of Scripture to support your concept of gender responsibilities in the home? Not even ONE bit of Scripture to support your claim that it… Read more »
“1. When it becomes apparent that the family is suffering because each of the three kids is off doing their disparate extra-curricular activities and the mother/wife is running herself ragged with the chauffeuring and the house is neglected…the “hard job” of counseling his family to limit these activities (or doing it himself when they can’t/won’t) is thrust upon the servant-leader.” I can see this. At the same time, I informally counseled a woman, a coworker, whose husband stayed out of the home as much as possible. If he wasn’t working, he was hunting or being out with his friends. They… Read more »
Hopefully you advised her that the Bible give her no authority to correct her husbands behavior in that manner and specifically states the strict conditions under which husbands and wives may deny each other intimacy. Denying sex in this manner is a dangerous game. Beyond that there are many petty problems that arise in a marriage that suddenly fade in significance between the sheets.
1 – You don’t really think I advised her that, do you. 2 – This had nothing to do with anybody not having sex. There’s more to marriage than sex. There’s more to a person’s responsibility toward their marriage partner than sex. Edit: Maybe you are referring to my second story. I didn’t advise my friend anything. She didn’t ask for my advice. 3 – “Beyond that there are many petty problems that arise in a marriage that suddenly fade in significance between the sheets.” That is one perspective that is not universally shared. Maybe if you explain to your… Read more »
How could it possibly be dangerous unless he is some kind of pervert? He is a grown man who is capable of self controlI presume.
The Bible tells us that one of the purposes of marriage is to prevent falling into sexual sin. It also says that husbands and wives do not have the right to deny each other sexually. If a woman defies the word of God on these matters and her husband falls into sin she will share in the judgement.
I think he meant dangerous to the marriage, and indeed it is.
I would think then that the danger ultimately lies in the husband’s neglect…I mean, you know,if he’s the servant leader…And the head. Accountability and responsibility lie mostly with the one has most authority. Except interestingly in the case of fundamentalists patriarchy where it can always be found to lie with”the woman you gave me.”
Or, you know, it could be, that the husband, being a sinner, is guilty of neglect, AND the wife has chosen an awful and dangerous way to deal with it.
I don’t know why we can’t say “this thing is really destructive for person A to do” without always the “yebbut, the other person!” reaction. Wives WILL be sinned against by husbands. How we deal with it still matters, and is still our load to carry. I don’t know why “but the husband failed” absolves the wife from being told that reacting that way is a really, really bad idea.
In other words, husbands can completely ignore their families preferences if he is convinced that what he’s doing is necessary. Got it. Wives can only cajole and wheedle, and if that fails, suffer.
No. Perhaps you were only skimming topic sentences?
Husbands are not leading if they “completely ignore their families [sic] preferences.” They’re being blustering dunderheads. But a godly husband COULD be in the position of having to make a very unpopular decision because “he is convinced that what he’s doing in necessary.” Deciding against the family’s preferences is not equal to ignoring them.
Also, no re: the wives’ options. Cajoling and wheedling wives are worse than dripping faucets! Better to live on the corner of the roof than with a woman like that!
So just go straight to suffering, silently so as not to disturb her lordship peace.
Its interesting to me that, during my student days at a well-known evangelical seminary on the North Shore of Boston, I read and heard about how the cultural context of the first century (i.e. Jesus and Paul) was so important to take into account. Otherwise, we could gravely misread the Bible. But these same context-hawks were reluctant to acknowledge the context that WE inhabit. It was like only the ancients (or fundamentalists) had cultural context – not the redactors working today to straighten everything out. Twenty-five years later, I’m struck by how Christians have accommodated (adapted?) to the zeitgeist of… Read more »
It’s really hard to see the effects that contemporary culture has on our thinking. Fish don’t know they’re wet. This is why I encouraged my kid to read a lot of vintage literature as she was growing up – Louisa May Alcott, Jane Austen, and so forth. I wasn’t trying to prepare her for life in the 19th century. I was trying to give her some perspective, to see that things weren’t always as they are now.
An excellent plan to avoid chronological snobbery!
You misunderstand the issue. The “cultural context” argument is used by Biblical scholars to explain how some of the things that Paul or others wrote might be influenced by culture and therefore not trustworthy as “Gospel truth”. But this approach deals with the text itself, not the interpretation of it. The issue is that if Paul was influenced by culture, and then we stamp “inerrant” or “infallible” on it, then we have forever preserved a way of thinking that might not really reflect the heart of the Gospel. These are really two different issues that you are treating as the… Read more »
Please show where Jesus supports the premise where the Word of God is not authoritative because: “cultural”
Leviticus 24:
19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.
Matthew 5:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.”
Ma’am, The exposition of lex talionis (by Jesus) is not “cultural”; the exegesis contains both the grace of the limit of restitution, and as the fulfillment in Christ. The blow to a cheek was not emblematic of criminal behavior, but an insult, affront and indignity. This does not repeal the law of self-protection, or the responsibility that men have for the safety of their family; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary for security; but we not must avenge ourselves, nor try to get even with those that have mistreated us , but we… Read more »
Jesus was definitely controverting “the one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.” If you accept that every verse in the Bible is the word of God, at face value and as-is, then you must find a way to account for his contradiction. Your comment enlarges on the contradiction but it doesn’t explain it.
There is no contradiction; its all grace, all the way down.
Limits on man’s natural desire for revenge is grace. Like a mustard seed that grows, slowly and inexorably, at the right time, mercy and justice, grace and truth kissed. Crawl, walk, run.
He did not controvert it; He provided the back that took the stripes for the revenge. And He still provides the ultimate justice.
And just for the record, lex talionis was not “must suffer”; it was “this far and no farther”. It was a limit.
You have heard it said … But I tell you.
That is controversion.
And are you telling me that “must” is an error in the translation? I’m open to that. What is your source?
It’s very common for Old Testament scholars to interpret the lex talionis as a limiting principle. The idea is that in other law codes in the ancient near east, people could be put to death for stealing cattle, or a poor man could be killed for striking a rich man, etc. In the Old Testament, however, God limits retribution to exclude unreasonable punishment. If you lose your eye, you may not inflict a punishment greater than an eye. Tooth for tooth, life for life… This isn’t just conservative scholars who do this either. Even the liberal E.P. Sanders takes this… Read more »
I’ve seen that before. But here is the whole chapter and it doesn’t read that way. The way it reads, there is absolutely no wiggle room for mercy. I have a different take on what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount. He went straight from “17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any… Read more »
The limits were mercy.
Exposition is not controversion, just as a blueprint does not contradict the building. When the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. The original intent of Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:20, and Deut. 19:21 is that punishment should be equitable and should fit the crime. The law established this standard as a principle for limiting retribution to that which was just. These limitations prohibited exacting a greater vengeance or having different penalties for different social classes. Grace. Here is Matthew Henry: “It was a direction to the judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims,… Read more »
We aren’t going to agree here. I see “you must”, not “you can punish up to this extent but you can’t exceed it.” And I see what you are doing as an attempt to overlay the text with an interpretation that it does not support.
Well then, you should probably check with your husband. :)
ROFL!
One of the ways I try to emulate my husband is that he doesn’t get caught up in theoretical angels-dancing-on-pin-heads stuff. He is much more concerned with just being a good person, day to day. While I find these conversations stimulating and edifying, I understand that you could be theologically perfect and still have a cold heart. That isn’t his kind of thing at all and I respect and appreciate him for it.
Jesus never says that. But while we’re on the topic of the authoritative word, when Jesus was preaching, there was no New Testament. Any Scripture he was referring to would have been the OT. Anyway, the point of my response was simply to show that there is a difference between culturally biased interpretations of Scripture and the possibility of culturally biased Scripture itself. You mentioned seminary and historical criticism, and the concern of such scholars is that we need to understand the culture context in order to correctly understand an author.
“You mentioned seminary and historical criticism, and the concern of such scholars is that we need to understand the culture context in order to correctly understand an author.”
I did? Where?
Sorry. See my comment above. I mistook you for Bonhoeffer1945.
My mistake. It was Bonhoeffer1945. I thought you were him.
“Feminism in denial” is just another name for modern Christianity. Christianity and feminism aren’t opposites; the former is just a less honest or more confused version of the latter. Christians don’t like the abortion and lesbo stuff, but otherwise, they’re pretty much on board with the rest of the feminist program.
“Christians don’t like the abortion and lesbo stuff, but otherwise, they’re pretty much on board with the rest of the feminist program.”
If we’re not, we should be.
If you define feminism as the belief that women should be feminine, then yes. Otherwise, your statement is false.
There are soooo many definitions of feminism out there. I got tired of saying “I’m not a feminist but” and then talking about what, to me, seem perfectly reasonable requests that women have, like not being harassed in the workplace and so on, and being accused of being a feminist when I express them, so I decided to embrace the term. If you say that a woman doing the same job as a man ought to be paid the same, someone will call you a feminist. If you say a woman ought not to be passed over for a promotion… Read more »
Okie-doke.
I’ve embraced my inner sexist-pig.
I already knew.
” ‘But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me” (Luke 19:27, ESV). And so let us use that as an example of servant-leadership. Let us postulate an occasion when leadership requires executing your enemies.’ ” Doug, this is a preposterous and irresponsible application of this verse. Of course, your entire blog is irresponsible and preposterous. But I think you know that. It’s all part of the “fun”. The problem is that there are people that read this stuff and comment on it that don’t… Read more »
With a nome de plume like spike and thoughts of the above nature, I think you need your own blog…
Great suggestion. How about responding to the “thoughts”. Do you think Doug is applying this Scripture in a reasonable manner? Why or why not?
Well I think that he is very reasonable. Here is a quote from Matthew Henry: “When his faithful subjects are preferred and rewarded, then he will take vengeance on his enemies, and particularly on the Jewish nation, the doom of which is here read. When Christ had set up his gospel kingdom, and thereby put reputation upon the gospel ministry, then he comes to reckon with the Jews; then it is remembered against them that they had particularly disclaimed and protested against his kingly office, when they said, We have no king but Caesar, nor would own him for their… Read more »
Interesting, but I didn’t ask what Matthew Henry said. Do YOU think Doug is correctly applying this particular Scripture passage? Why or why not? Deal with the verse and its context, please, as well as Doug’s application of it.
Read my earlier comments. I do, and I did.
I looked at your earlier comments and I didn’t see an explanation of why you thought Doug’s application of this verse to the ideas of headship-style male leadership was not misapplied. You gave me a big quote from Matthew Henry, but the MH quote is about divine judgement, not about how individual Christians might need to step up as “hard” leaders and “execute our enemies”. I’m not questioning the concept of divine retribution. I’m questioning how Doug can connect this particular verse with the content of the rest of the blog post. And you still haven’t explained why you think… Read more »
Oh snap! You got the MH burn dawg!!!!
Yes, very painful.
Sure I’ll tell you what I think after you tell us why you feel Doug is misapplying scripture, and being irresponsible and preposterous. If you expected there to be a kumbya section full of nice, you’re in the wrong place. What brought you here?
Not expecting kumbaya, just a substantive response to my post as opposed to an ad hominem. So here is how Doug is misapplying Scripture. He is taking a parable that Jesus is using to respond to the Disciples’ belief that the Kingdom of Heaven was going to appear immediately when they got to Jerusalem. Jesus is explaining the concept of faithfulness–that those that have the most loyalty to the absent King will receive the most in return when he comes back. But there are others–the citizens that “hated him”–that the newly appointed King executes because they did not want him… Read more »
Why would God not use people, nature, etc. to accomplish his purposes (Rom. 8, Pharoah, etc., etc.)?
Your dichotomy seems unbiblical.
Can I just repeat this and add a me-too?
***As to what brought me here, I find little value in reading the blogs of people I already agree with. I much prefer to be challenged by perspectives I have difficulty with. Iron sharpens iron. As I said, no need for kumbaya, but let’s actually respond to each others’ claims thoughtfully and with evidence.***
Yes, its refreshing to see thought put into comments as you have done. **** The last month and a half have seen a steady stream of SJW’s parade through looking for their next fight. Good to meet you. **** As to your question. Doug is not a person to mince words and frequently is very bracing like a stiff winter wind. This is not unlike scripture. There are many times reading the Gospels where I’m brought up short by Jesus being extremely blunt or pointed with either the Pharisee’s or his own disciples. I don’t find Jesus interested in being… Read more »
Thanks for your response. Your reply, however, does not really address the issue. All it does is state that you like Wilson’s approach and agree with the idea in his post that men need to be good leaders. I’m not saying men shouldn’t be good leaders. What I AM saying is that Doug’s use of Luke 19:27 to make an argument that Jesus said some tough things about being a leader is misapplying Luke 19:27. You mention the bluntness of Elijah killing the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings. But here’s the thing: Elijah may have been a prophet of… Read more »
Re: Elijah. God may not have explicitly said to execute the prophets of Baal, and God may not have told Moses to throw the tablets down smashing them either. But they were Prophets, with a capital P (my misspelling) and as such they were under the sentence of death if they misrepresented God, or did not do as they had been commanded. Everything they did was representing God, and was done in His name, so they had to be excruciatingly careful themselves. Its not a leap to say that Elijah knew exactly what was appropriate to do, and it wouldn’t… Read more »
You say that “[Doug] is well versed in not just theology, but in classic works of literature, and actually knows them such that he can call upon them. Don’t forget, or maybe you don’t know, he also teaches classes at New Saint Andrews College.” The same could be said of any number of scholars (aside from the specific school he teaches at). I could list off scholars that hold to points that are diametrically opposed to Wilson’s, so a person’s pedigree does not mean that their interpretations are always valid. As you your point about Elijah, you seem to agree… Read more »
Youngster, I’ve answered you 3 times; and we’ve had a good conversation.
“Answered” is not quite accurate. You responded like a politician–consistently working around the question. Since you fail to actually engage with the text and explain YOUR reasoning as opposed to simply citing Doug’s credentials, I’ll take that as an inability to do so. But thanks anyway.
Truly leading is truly serving.
Yes, being a leader has been confusing for this Beta-Male. Its only through Christ I’ll ever get the hang of things.
I have seen better leadership come from Beta makes than from Alpha males.
My reenactment of how every one of these Christian vs Doug conversations should go…
Angry Christians: “Hey Doug, we are Christians and we don’t like what you said!”
Doug: “Then forgive me.”
Biblical mandate aside for a moment, women traditionally made a bargain to trade loyalty and reproductive capacity for protection and provision. This was seen in the husband/wife relationship but also more broadly in social norms in which a man would be protective of a woman he didn’t know if the situation called for it. That was a very good deal for women for thousands of years but now not so much. Through the violence and technological progress of Western patriarchal society America has become a very safe and well provisioned place. Women were not clamoring to get out of the… Read more »
“Chivalry is out. If you see a woman in need of physical aid or protection call the police.”
Are you married? Is this how you want Christian men to treat your wife?
That’s an excellent question. No doubt you’d like to continue having your cake and eating it too. My wife can avoid some of the consequences of the low trust society women like you are creating in several ways. The best way is to spend her time around people in our own local community who know her. They are well aware that she has sacrificed for the community and deserves their protection. The other thing she does is respect my role as her protector. If she wants to plan a trip downtown she gives me the details and asks my permission.… Read more »
“If she wants to plan a trip downtown she gives me the details and asks my permission.”
Wow. Holy cow.
I actually ask hubby’s permission when I go places, Laura, not out of a sense of oppression, but rather love and respect. He worries about me. Also, if I don’t return, he knows where to start looking for me.
He does say no sometimes, but again that is love and concern, not oppression. Sometimes there is ice on the road, sometimes he does not like the neighborhood or the people, and sometimes he simply needs me at home. In the context of love these things seem so normal, so natural.
I guess we have to work all these things out in our individual marriages.
I think if I were to ask my husband “may I” before I do stuff, he’d feel kind of oppressed. He likes my independent nature.
I’d like to suggest something I can’t suggest.
If I were a young, unmarried man and I saw a man assaulting a woman, I’d keep walking. Intervening is a good way to get seriously injured, or even killed. Time and time again, men have jumped in to defend a woman who was being beaten by a man, only to find himself being assaulted by two people, after the “victim” he “rescued” begins attacking him along with her boyfriend. A man died in that very scenario which famously made the news last year. If someone criticizes you for not getting involved in a a fight between a man and… Read more »
“And a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
If that is what you think, then obviously you don’t think any woman anywhere needs you for anything. So, of course you wouldn’t stop to help a woman whose car battery had died. For others of us, we didn’t take to heart frivolous slogans from fifty years ago.
Well, okay, if “love your neighbor as yourself” has been suspended due to feminism. But I didn’t get that memo.
Troll!
Interesting post and the comments that follow. This gets to the crux of the problem, “you discover there is no way to do such things effectively without being hard. But a servant-leader is hard for his family. He is not hard on his family.” Men are called to be both soft and hard which requires a bit of a paradox, a duality of character that is not so easy to understand and walk with. The resistance “extreme complimentarians” often encounter has to do with the fear some people have from having seen men reverse those concepts, becoming hard ON their… Read more »
We experience a little of Heaven. We experience the strength of the Body. Soon there is no “duty”. To be lost in decade after decade in HIS Blessings. Not a lot of sacrifices as we grow; just learning to release ourselves to the Body. No different than releasing ourselves into to HIS Body.
Everyone gains in extreme positives; there are no losses. We are the ones that create the exceptions. We dig our own holes. HE is even there to pull us out. HE is always there.
I want to expand on what I posted earlier, I don’t have time to look for it so I will reiterate . It has been my experience that Beta makes are better pastors than Alpha males. I have been a Christian for 43 years and have seen a lot. Vine Beta makes if my experience have more empathy , less ego and are able to reach people where they are at and lovingly and tenderly bring them to where they need to be, vi am still close to many of my former pastors who are still serving Tbe Lord
Sorry , posted too soon. Anyway, I am still close to many of my former pastors who are still serving The Lord, who are now in their 69’s , 70’s and even 80’s. They walk humbly and serve gently and have made a HUGE impact for God’s kingdom. Many who they have mentored have gone on to Seminary and become pastors,
On the other hand the Alpha Pastors have caused chaos, church splits , which has distracted from spiritual growth,
Give me a humble, unassuming, teachable man of God anytime. These Godly men also treat women and children well
According to this paradigm, was Jesus alpha or beta? Did He cause any chaos or church splits? It seems to me, from the pattern of Scripture, that God uses both. Even among Jesus’s hand-picked disciples, there were some sons of thunder.
Leslie, how do you differentiate between Alpha and Beta males? There’s an entire thing out there about Alpha men being those who get the most commitment-free sex from the most attractive women. I know that’s not what you mean! So what do you mean?
I am vice- chairing a huge statewide conference, so I will have to get back to you next week.
Jude 1: 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Some have compassion and others, pull them out of the fire. Does it take both? Did we create the terms? Does True Love… Read more »
I think Alpha males and Beta makes can be broken down into two categories each. Some Alpha men are born to lead and can do it well. The good ones take the lead for the good of all. Other men who think they are Alpha actually have huge ego issues.they lead for the glory it gives them and people are thrown under the bus. Some Beta makes lead by example . They are perhaps not strong personalities, but kind, gentle and caring. However they are not afraid to call out sin for what it is. Other men who are Beta… Read more »
Affirming the consequent is the danger again. There is abusive, domineering leadership. Some react by saying all leadership and authority is unbiblical, so go the quakers and Anabaptists, and that authority at all is a result of the fall. Than other see this and think that any leadership is good and become domineering. Doug is right to write this article, for the suffering of those who have suffered under domineering leadership have been heard, as they should, but the suffering of those who suffered because people could not bring themselves to do their responsibility is rarely exposed. We must remember… Read more »
when I pointed this out to my church, they told me I was not a believer…
their men fulfill their wife’s responsibilities to show servanthood
while the wives sit with the elders and other childless men discussing theology or working full time
servant leadership is beautiful but CBMW, Macarthur etc have made it a joke
only if a man pretends to be a woman is her serving…