RSS

The Flawed Idea of Male Leadership in Churchianity

07 Apr

Great insights and wisdom is written in comments at various blogs. Often this gets lost in obscurity unless pulled out and featured.

Brendan writes an excellent analysis on Dalrock’s post: What, Me Worry?
(links added and embedded for clarity)

I also think that a significant aspect to what you are talking about, empath[ologicalism], has to do with a very flawed idea of the notion of male leadership.

There is a tendency to argue/believe, in a rather sloppy way, that because men are supposed to be the leaders (in churches, in families and so on) that anything that is amiss is primarily the fault of the men — women are the designated followers, and so any shortcomings they may have are also the fault of the men for being imperfect leaders. The idea is that if the men were simply leading properly, we wouldn’t see the women behaving the way they do — so the way to “address the issue” is to get men to lead better, and the women will just magically fall in line.

This is a pervasive mindset among American Christians, especially among self-described “conservative” Protestant Christians. It’s also present, to a lesser degree, among conservative Catholic (and unfortunately Orthodox as well) clerics. You see this reflected in guys like Driscoll and Stanton. You also see it reflected in the more general and pervasive idea that people have (as slwerner talks about above) that if a woman is “acting out” in some bad way, ultimately the man must have done something to cause this, even if that “something” was not being the ideal leader to be followed perfectly.

If you have this mindset that everything women do is derivative of male leadership, then you’re going to view “fixing” the problem as primarily a matter of fixing what the men are doing — the women will magically “fall in line” if you do this. (This kind of magic wish thinking also pervades the Game community, by the way, but that’s a topic for a different comment). So, if you see problem with female promiscuity, you immediately look at what the men are doing in the picture, and woodshed them to act differently — because if they do, you believe that the women will stop behaving promiscuously, simply because you see their behavior as derivative of male behavior — i.e., that they “follow the man’s lead”, whether he is leading well or not. In other words, this interpretation of male leadership always finds the locus of any problem in the man — women have a lesser degree of moral agency, in effect, under this view — and even though when it’s expressed that way almost none of these guys would admit that, in effect it is nevertheless what they are doing and saying.

This is very far removed from what we see in Genesis. In Genesis, by contrast, we see God making both Adam AND Eve own their own shit. God doesn’t say to Eve; “Well, we know Adam was being a shitty leader, and therefore we don’t really blame you for what you did, even though it was technically wrong” — no, he berates her for her own sin. Of course, he berates Adam for *listening* to Eve and following her into her sin, rather than leading her out of it, but this admonition and penalty does not obscure or understate the admonition and penalty issued to Eve. Both are sinners, the sin is in some ways the same and in some ways different due to the different situations of each. The American Christian God of today simply does not want to hold Eve to account for her sins — he wants to hold Adam account for his own sins and also for those of Eve. Quite simply, he doesn’t want to make Eve responsible for her own shit.

This is a foundational heresy, in functional terms, that has infected pretty much all of American Christianity — the only difference is the degree of the infection, which differs depending on one’s “Brand” of Christianity. It is, however, a fundamental moral heresy which is destroying the church from within. The social conservatives and traditionalists are just as guilty of this as are other Christians due to their tendency to magnify male responsibility while diminishing female responsibility. There are many reasons for this — Victorianism, longstanding pro-female sympathies due to chivalry and the ancient regime order between men and women in the West, the influence of feminism — all of them mingling together to make for a distinctly toxic brew. But the fact remains that they do this, they do it almost reflexively, because it “feels right”. This is the fundamental problem.

About these ads
 
60 Comments

Posted by on April 7, 2012 in churchianity, culture, Masculinity, religion

 

60 responses to “The Flawed Idea of Male Leadership in Churchianity

  1. CL

    April 7, 2012 at 11:26 am

    Since 1920, the Frankfurt School has infected everything with Critical Theory, following the reformation, the French revolution and the Bolshevik revolution. Feminism is but one (very successful) part of the attack on western civilisation. We’re seeing the results of the cultural Marxist thought that has had its grip on schools and universities and the media for a long time now.

     
  2. njartist49

    April 7, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Excellent.
    Leads to a question: if these people consider the man to be accountable for his wife’s sinful behavior, how do they plan for the man to make his wife to behave; for, with no-fault divorce and a basic “anything that upsets wifey” is violence against women, just how could the man even remotely lead his wife?

     
  3. Sunshine

    April 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    My first reaction was disagreement with the fact that men are not somewhat more responsible for shepherding women’s behavior. However, as I’ve been thinking more about this, I can see and kind of agree with the point being made (as I understand it).

    First, in support of disagreeing…here is what the Bible says:

    1 Timothy 3:1-13
    Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons

    1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

    8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

    11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

    12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

    Does this not imply that men are responsible for their own women’s behavior (not necessarily the behavior of ALL women of course)?

    However, @njartist49’s question about HOW are men supposed to get women to behave given that they are essentially hog-tied by current cultural and legal constraints made me think about the fact that, while I have heard sermon’s preached about male leadership at church, I haven’t heard my pastor address women’s neglect of their biblical duties such as caring for their homes and families and obeying their husbands. So, I think there is some truth in the original post; women HAVE been getting a pass in the modern church. I don’t think the church is out of line in its message to men – you do bear greater burdens on this earth, including the burden to lead. I agree that the church is out of line in its message to women. Women should be hearing more about their own sins and lack of obedience to their husbands.

    Thank you for posting this. One of the things that I really like about this blog is that it makes me think about and at times re-evaluate what I really believe.. :)

     
  4. Bwana Simba

    April 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    100% truth. And when the men do anything that offends the women they are required to submit to the women. For example, a young married couple was preaching to a small group of men about marriage that I was briefly involved in. The man talked about how he liked to play video games but his wife complained about how his hobby interfered with their closeness so he got rid of his video games. After his statement of how whipped he was he got a bunch of amens. Sad part is the church teaches men that they can both be dominant leaders AND submissive fools for their wives.

     
  5. 7man

    April 7, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    ”Sad part is the church teaches men that they can both be dominant leaders AND submissive fools for their wives.”

    This simple fact is that a man can not be a submissive fool and still be a dominant leader. A wife will feel attracted to a man that says NO, enforces boundaries and does not allow her to control him. Such a husband will get more sex and have a more contented wife than the man that supplicates to his wife in a futile attempt to please her. A man should practice benevolent dominance to be a good leader.

    If this is not present in a marriage, establishing it will not be easy. The roles have been set and things will destabilize as she tests his resolve to see if he will again give in to appease her so she will stop the emotional escalation. This is a big “shit test” and a man must stay the course if the dynamic is to be changed. Once the new dynamic is established, the relationship will likely be better than anything they previously experienced.

     
  6. Brendan

    April 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Hi folks!

    Leads to a question: if these people consider the man to be accountable for his wife’s sinful behavior, how do they plan for the man to make his wife to behave; for, with no-fault divorce and a basic “anything that upsets wifey” is violence against women, just how could the man even remotely lead his wife?

    I think the answer comes from the common, in almost all churches really, redefinition of what leadership in that context means: servant leadership. In essence, instead of serving by leading it has become leading by serving — and the latter isn’t really “leading”, it’s “serving” and then calling that service “leadership”, instead of “leading” and calling that leadership a “service”. “Servant leadership” — in the sense that service the leadership, rather than leading being the service — is another common heresy in this area, and it’s a very, very common view among contemporary American Christians of what “leadership” in the context of marriage actually means.

    Does this not imply that men are responsible for their own women’s behavior (not necessarily the behavior of ALL women of course)?

    I don’t believe it does, no.

    First, the passage is about the qualification of deacons and other church leaders. In the Orthodox Church, this passage is used to qualify who we ordain to the diaconate and the non-celibate priesthood. In the Catholic Church, it’s used to qualify whom is ordained to the “permanent diaconate” (i.e., non-celibate Catholic deacons who are not eligible for being ordained as priests in the Latin Rite). It isn’t a passage that has a general applicability to all men (for one thing, not everyone has to be married and have a family, etc., per Paul himself) nor to all husbands.

    Second, the passage never says that the man in question is responsible for his wife’s behavior. It does say (sticking with this translation) that he has “to manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect” — nothing really there about being responsible for what his *wife* is doing. It then says that “A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.” — again nothing there about being responsible for the actions of his wife. Of course it does strongly imply that a Deacon candidate should lead his family well — what it doesn’t say, however, is that such a man is actually responsible, in moral or other terms, for the actions and behaviors of his wife. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but it really isn’t. As a text that is trying to set forth qualifications for ordination, it’s saying that if you have a terrible family life that is unmanageable, you may be a poor candidate for ordination because you don’t have your personal act together — it isn’t saying that if this happens, anything that your wife may be doing is your responsibility, moral or otherwise.

    Verse 11 may be the root of some confusion, I’ll admit. It’s known that in the early Church there were female deacons. It isn’t completely clear what their function was, although there isn’t any evidence that I am aware of that they served a liturgical function like male deacons did (and still do). But it’s known that they existed and then fell into disuse. Verse 11 refers to these women — not the wives of the ordination candidate — that is, verse 11 isn’t judging the candidate by the behavior of his wife, and making him responsible for that. It’s saying that “similarly, for women candidates, they must also be worthy of respect and so on”. There is some confusion about the translations of the text, with some translations translating this as “wives”, but most of the commentaries I have read on that passage say that this is not a preferred translation due to the lack of a possessive article equivalent to “their” in the Greek, as well as the use of the word “similarly” in parallel to verse 8, which suggests that the women are similar to the men as candidates in this case (see, e.g., New American Bible footnote on 1Tim 3:11 in the Catholic Study Bible). However, even if verse 11 is read to refer to the wives of ordination candidates, this still would not mean that it would apply as a standard to all men — it would mean that in evaluating the suitability of a man for ordination, the behavior of his wife would be considered (which would also be reasonable, because not doing so could both undermine the leadership legitimacy of the deacon, as well as distract him from his duties to the church). It still does not make a man responsible for the fact that his wife is sinning.

     
  7. Anonymous age 70

    April 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    My SIL is a deacon in a Baptist Church. He was one of those Promise Keeper Dudes.

    When I try to tell him no man can lead a rebellious woman, he digs down in Ephesians where Satan wants him to be, and misinterprets a bunch of stuff. He gets all red in the face and shouts at me as loudly as he can. Satan likes that in a deacon.

    You don’t even get out of Genesis before you learn that Eve, with God as her personal spiritual leader, (He walked with Adam and Eve and taught them, Adam was not Eve’s spiritual leader, if you didn’t know this read Genesis again and stop listening to those PK guys) was able to sin. Yet, a mortal husband is told that his wife’s sin is his personal failure. A husband is supposed to be more powerful than God! You cannot make up stuff like this.

    The mistake those guys make is thinking the statement men are to be leaders indicates if a man just leads properly, his wife will become totally submissive and obedient. The Bible makes it clear to those who are not led astray by childish male ego that male leadership is initiated by female submission.

    So, how many wives do you know who are truly submissive to their husbands. Not counting in church when others are listening? I only know a handful, and they include my daughter and several of her friends. Let me say it again. No man can lead a rebellious wife.

     
  8. Anonymous age 70

    April 7, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    If there were a way for a husband to lead a rebellious, argumentative wife, one would think it would be spelled out in the Bible.

    Yet, what does the Bible say about rebellious, argumentative wives? The Bible uses the word contentious rather than rebellious and argumentative. The true inspired Word of God gives no solution, just says you would be better off living on a roof or in the desert. Thus, this is more proof God does not blame men for the sins of women who are not submissive, and that no man can lead a rebellious woman.

    I first heard this in the 80’s. I got a paper back version, and skimmed through, looking for any reference to men; women; marriage; or anything close to it. It took me a considerable time. I did not trust a concordance to pick up all related words.

    As I found such references, I noted them on inside back cover. When I finished, I went back and examined each one. No where in the Bible does it say men are responsible for the sins of a woman, at least not one who is not submissive. Pure feminist fiction, coupled with childish male egos. Shame on those who attack men like that, claiming it is God’s law. Shame!

     
  9. CL

    April 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Anonymous age 70 deserves a hearty round of applause for his comments.

     
  10. Sunshine

    April 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    @Anonymousage70 – But what about the book of Hosea? Wasn’t Gomer a rebellious woman? Yet in the end Hosea was called by God to pursue her and ultimately lead her away from her sin.

    @Brendan: Thank you for clarifying some of the verses from Timothy. I did not know there were female deacons and am surprised to learn that, given that Paul instructs women to be silent in the congregation and to confer with their husbands at home when they have questions. However, if verse 11 is about female deacons, then I see that it does not say that a man is responsible for his wife’s behavior (except as is implied in the idea of managing one’s household). However, are the qualifications for being a deacon really not applicable to all married men? It seems to me (and I humbly admit that I am not a Bible scholar) that these men were to be holy examples to other men, so all men should strive to emulate them.

    However, I think we can all agree that women are responsible for their own rebelliousness and that we will reap the consequences of it. As a society, I’m sure we all agree that we are reaping what feminism has sown, and it is dreadful. The victims who have gotten the worst part of the deal are, of course, children.

    Here is a question: Since the bad behavior of women is so very damaging to children, do men not have a moral responsibility as the protectors of their children to at least attempt to manage women’s behavior?

     
  11. Will S.

    April 7, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    @ Sunshine: “But what about the book of Hosea? Wasn’t Gomer a rebellious woman? Yet in the end Hosea was called by God to pursue her and ultimately lead her away from her sin.”

    Yes, but that was an extraordinary form of prophecy, not meant as a model for Christian living. In fact, precisely the opposite: what God was doing, was illustrating His faithfulness to unfaithful Israel, by having Hosea mirror His own relationship to unfaithful Israel, by making Hosea marry a harlot. That was NOT meant to be an example for all to follow – though I can well see evanjellyfish churchians using it to teach such. No, God was illustrating a point via an extreme example. Kinda like He did in having Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac – which He actually did with His own son, at Calvary…

     
  12. Brendan

    April 7, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    A blessed Easter to all of my Western Christian friends!

     
  13. Svar

    April 7, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Hi Brendan. Nice to have you here and a blessed Easter to you as well.

    David Collard once said that the Bible is basically the story of “look what happens when you listen to your wife”. That’s all that there is need to be said.

     
  14. Svar

    April 7, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Sunshine, while men are called to lead their wives, the relationship between a man and wife is that of Christ and the Church. When we sin, is it Christ’s fault? Nope.

    While men do not suffer a moral penalty when their women don’t know their place and Kinder, Kueche, Kirch properly, there are practical reasons, like the one you mentioned, for a man to keep his wife in line.

     
  15. Svar

    April 7, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    Anonymous Age 70, it is possible to tame a shrew, but to be honest, who the hell wants to do all that work?

     
  16. Sunshine

    April 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    @Svar- Oh, I agree that it is not Christ’s fault when we sin, but He assuredly took responsibility for our sin. We were rebellious indeed, but He died for us anyway. A husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, so even though it is not the husband’s fault when the wife is sinning, nevertheless it seems to me that God instructs the husband to take responsibility for leading his wife and taking responsibility for her. It isn’t his fault when she rebels, but neither was it Jesus’ fault when mankind rebelled, yet He took responsibility for our sin even unto death. By taking responsibility for his wife’s moral state and leading her even when she is rebelling, a man is not thereby saying that the woman is NOT sinning, nor is he saying that her sin is his fault. He is showing his acceptance of his position in the hierarchy God established by bearing that responsibility.

    Look, if you are a CEO and some of your workers screw up and cause the company to lose money, you will be the one who accepts responsibility before the shareholders and you will take charge of getting the organization back on track, right, even if you weren’t the one who screwed up? You may have to mete out some disciplinary measures to fix the situation, though, and this is where we have a problem because feminism has made it impossible for a husband to maintain order by disciplining bad behavior (obviously I’m not advocating physical violence here; I just mean men’s authority and economic advantage has been undermined).

    Anyway, this is just how I understand things as of today, but I’ve been realizing over the past months how a lot of what I’ve been taught is flat-out wrong, so I post this with a humble attitude and a willingness to hear corrections. :)

     
  17. Licorne Negro

    April 7, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    @Sunshine
    I’m not christian, but… Even to Jesus take responsability for the sins of a person, that person have to accept Jesus, SUBMIT to him (Oh! The “S” word! xD), repent (not only from mouth out, but from heart), ask humbly for forgiveness and so on… I already said about submitting to Jesus and his every word? Am I mistaken?
    Besides… Disciplinary measures must be tough to have any significance. Authority is void and null without power to impose it. After all, Jesus will send all those sinners who do not repent AND submit to him, plus all those infidels (me included) to Hell. And I’m sure as hell that an eternity in hell is a helluva lot worse than physical punishment.

     
  18. Svar

    April 7, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    “Oh, I agree that it is not Christ’s fault when we sin, but He assuredly took responsibility for our sin. We were rebellious indeed, but He died for us anyway. A husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, so even though it is not the husband’s fault when the wife is sinning, nevertheless it seems to me that God instructs the husband to take responsibility for leading his wife and taking responsibility for her. It isn’t his fault when she rebels, but neither was it Jesus’ fault when mankind rebelled, yet He took responsibility for our sin even unto death. By taking responsibility for his wife’s moral state and leading her even when she is rebelling, a man is not thereby saying that the woman is NOT sinning, nor is he saying that her sin is his fault. He is showing his acceptance of his position in the hierarchy God established by bearing that responsibility.”

    That makes sense to me. Look, I’m not an expert here. I’ve spent more time reading Roissy and Chronicles than I have reading the Bible. Sad to say, but that’s the case. Most of what I know about Christianity is from the latter and the rest from C.S. Lewis/Hillaire Belloc/G.K. Chesterton.

    “Anyway, this is just how I understand things as of today, but I’ve been realizing over the past months how a lot of what I’ve been taught is flat-out wrong, so I post this with a humble attitude and a willingness to hear corrections. :)”

    Strange…. I’ve heard three different women say that around these parts of the net. I’m curious; what exactly are those things that you’ve been taught wrong?

     
  19. Licorne Negro

    April 7, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    @Sunshine
    I’m not a christian, but… If I remember correctly, Jesus only takes responsability for your wrongdoings if you:
    1) Repents;
    2) Accept him;
    3) Submit to him;
    4) Ask humbly for forgiveness;
    5) Adapt your behavior to suit him (and not his words to suit you);
    6) I already said submit to him?

    And, for the disciplinary measure… The destiny of those who do not submit to him (me, as an infidel, included. xD) is much, much worse than physical punishment. Is an eternity in hell itself. I assure you that I’ll be better of with a disciplinary measure if it just mean being fired from my job or physically punished than to spend the rest of eternity in hell.

    So yes… The husband, in relation to his wife, must seek to be like Jesus to the church.
    But, being this the case… The husband must be a lot harsher in his discipline, and the wife must submit to the husband even if the world outside want to kill them both (as the church submit to Christ even when persecuted by the World and the Dragon).
    Of course if the husband himself is a risk to her life, it’s other situation. But… If the example of Jesus is to be followed, the husband must be much tougher in his leadership than most husbands are today.

     
  20. Will S.

    April 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    @ Brendan: Thanks; I guess you will be observing Easter on the Eastern calendar, later?

     
  21. Johnycomelately

    April 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    Hosea is an allegory of Israel’s idolatry, Hosea is God in the allegory and Israel is the whore.

     
  22. Will S.

    April 8, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Exactly my point, JCL. It is not meant as proscriptive, any more than God’s commanding of Abraham to slay his son Isaac was meant for us to follow Abraham’s example in his willingness to sacrifice his son; God doesn’t require such willingness from all of us…

     
  23. Brendan

    April 8, 2012 at 7:20 am

    Yes we have our Pascha next Sunday.

     
  24. Will S.

    April 8, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    @ Licorne Negro: Welcome to Patriactionary; everyone’s first comments at our blog go into moderation the first time, till we approve them. Then, they can comment freely, provided they don’t be trolls, and the like.

     
  25. Will S.

    April 8, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    @ Brendan: In that case

     
  26. David Collard

    April 8, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    A Latin Mass priest once told some of us married couples that, figuratively speaking, God will look to the husband first when he judges us. Then to the wife. Rather like he spoke to Adam first after The Fall.

     
  27. Will S.

    April 8, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    @ DC: Maybe in some matters He will, but as to salvation itself, that is an individual matter (whether or not one believes in the Lord), and I can’t imagine God operating, as regards ultimate questions of that nature, other than on a one-to-one basis with everyone.

     
  28. canecaldo

    April 9, 2012 at 12:38 am

    I’m glad this comment was higlighted. I wanted to comment on it not too long after it was posted, but the length of the reply was prohibitive, and I also didn’t want to highjack Dalrock’s blog.

    Brendan, I know where you’re coming from, and your general point about how Stanton, et. al, blame men for everything is right on. However, you’re wrong in your analysis of Genesis (but not nearly so much as Anonymous Aged 70), and I think you’re nearly as guilty as so-con’s in confusing the terms “guilt” and “responsibility”. This is important because this is the foundation of the leadership of the husband, and the righteousness and goodness thereof.

    Despite what AA70 says, Adam WAS responsible for Eve; even before the Fall. God was not her “personal spiritual leader’. Adam was in leader in all ways. Genesis 2:


    “15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

    17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    Notice 1) Adam is directly give the order. 2) Eve doesn’t exist yet. Let’s continue


    19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    God brings every creature before Adam, and has Adam name them. This is God’s method of putting them all in submission to the rule of Adam. When Eve is finally created, she too is given to Adam to name. In other words, before the Fall, Eve is Adam’s responsibility. Not only her, but the whole world. We move on to Genesis 3


    1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

    2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

    4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof…

    First, Eve–who did not exist when the ban was given–misquotes God (perhaps Adam didn’t pass it on verbatim. Doesn’t matter much.) and say that even if they touch it they shall die. Deceived by the serpent, she goes to the tree, touches it–and doesn’t die. Serpent must have been right! Let’s finish verse 6


    and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    Still doesn’t die. Adam, is given the fruit–notices Eve is not dead–eats of it too.


    7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

    8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

    9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

    Lieutenant Adam, what is your report? Adam is in charge.

    10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

    11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

    12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

    13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

    Adam’s response is to abdicate responsibility both down and up the chain. He blames Eve, and God for giving him Eve; neither of which is a reason for why Adam himself ate of it.


    14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    God curses the serpent directly. It can no longer get around however it did before it crawled on its belly, and puts it in the minds of both species to be at odds with the other.


    16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Eve, too, is directly cursed with sexual dysfunction, gestation of pregnancy, and birth pains. Also, the natural consequences of living in discord with her superior officer–wanting his position of leadership, and yet failing to ever succeed or be happy in it.


    17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

    1) Adam (as David Collard rightly notes) is taken to task FIRST for accepting disorder in the chain of command by doing the bidding of his charge. Second, for directly disobeying his commander. 2) Adam is not cursed–the whole stinking world is cursed because of what Adam did. Adam, though massively affected by this, is not directly cursed. Instead, nor is he removed from his post–he is still master of all the earth. Only now the earth will be in rebellion to Adam in the way Adam was in rebellion to God, and Eve was in rebellion to Adam.

    This the strongest argument for the responsibility–the continuing responsibility–of Adam. This doesn't mean that Adam is guilty for Eve eating the fruit, but he is responsible for her; for failing to husband her.

    Now, in the context of modern marriages, this does not mean that if a wife is rebellious it is the husband's fault (and by definition one cannot lead some in rebellion; else they are not in rebellion), but it does mean that he is responsible for taking some action to at least stop it from infecting him. Jesus was talking about more than cuckoldry when he gave sexual immorality as a just cause for divorce.

     
  29. David Collard

    April 9, 2012 at 12:57 am

    I suppose the priest meant that the husband is responsible for how things went in the family and marriage overall; but the wife is still responsible for her own sins.

     
  30. will

    April 9, 2012 at 1:24 am

    @David Collard

    Yeah and the husband is responsible for disciplining her.

     
  31. will

    April 9, 2012 at 1:24 am

    Now whats a good way to discipline your wife. Or has the feminist state made it too hard for the husband to discipline?

     
  32. David Collard

    April 9, 2012 at 2:08 am

    will, if your inquiry is serious, I shall attempt a serious reply. I did once hear a Protestant husband admonish his wife and his wife explicitly accept the admonition. But, more seriously, I would say that I handle my wife’s misbehaviour by either ignoring it, or by telling her (preferably only once) firmly that I disapprove. This usually works. I just told my wife today to stop chivvying our son unnecessarily and to speak in a less casual fashion. She responded quite well to this.

    I think the important thing is not to remind one’s wife of her Christian obligations. Most women perceive that as a weak appeal to authority. What a sensible husband does is ensure that his wife respects him, and wants his approval and affection. Then, she will generally fall into line. It has taken me many years to learn how to do this, and I still don’t always get it right.

    I do spank my wife sometimes, but that is something she likes at least as much as me, and it is really just foreplay mostly.

     
  33. Elspeth

    April 9, 2012 at 6:20 am

    DC,

    Your answer to Will is good and balanced. I think it behooves us to remember that a wife is not a child to be disciplined in the same way you would a child. My husband corrects me, often quite abruptly when he hasn’t paused to think first, but I have learned when that happens to ignore the tone and consider the validity of the correction. Often I can see that he is right, I acknowledge that, make the appropriate change.

    Most women cannot do this because they are more concerned with how the correction made them feel than the validity of it. I largely gotten over that but on the rare occasion that it happens, I accept the correction and address the tone and spirit of it later, often with peaceful and satisfactory results.

    DC is also right that the worst thing a man can do is make a habit of reminding a wife of her Christian obligations. Submission truly cannot be demanded; it must be given. If you try and extract it from her, it is no longer submission, but coercion.

    This is a sticky subject for many women and despite my most earnest attempts, I still hear from a significant number of Christian women who simply won’t hear of submission as the Bible teaches of it.

    Funny story, yesterday in church there was a young couple sitting near us. They were an interesting study. She was clearly the leader of that outfit.

    @ Cane:

    Your comment is thought-provoking. I’d never thought about it that way before. You may have a point, although clearly God holds even personally responsible for her transgression.

     
  34. David Collard

    April 9, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Elspeth, if I had known you would read my remarks, I would have left out the last paragraph.

     
  35. canecaldo

    April 9, 2012 at 11:49 am

    @Elspeth “Your comment is thought-provoking. I’d never thought about it that way before. You may have a point, although clearly God holds even personally responsible for her transgression.”

    Is there a word missing? I don’t understand this statement.

     
  36. Elspeth

    April 9, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Yes, Cane. There is a misplaced. This is why I need to proofread, LOL. It should read thus:

    You may have a point, although clearly God holds Eve personally responsible for her transgression.”

    I think that clears up what I was trying to say.

    @DC:

    I hardly gave a thought to your final paragraph, and I’m sure you know that we’ve both run into far worse online. No worries.

     
  37. canecaldo

    April 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    He does, indeed.

    My thrust was to make clear–going back to the original statement about the nature and limitations and responsibility of man’s leadership–that mens’ acceptance or abdication of responsibility will necesarily have a profound impact on the state of the world; above and beyond what women do.

    Making an effort to hold errant women accountable (very much lacking in the western world) is no reason to say men aren’t responsible. Whether we like it or not the world suffers or prospers at the hands of men.

     
  38. Saint Velvet

    April 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Most women cannot do this because they are more concerned with how the correction made them feel than the validity of it. I largely gotten over that but on the rare occasion that it happens, I accept the correction and address the tone and spirit of it later, often with peaceful and satisfactory results.

    So true, and same here. It’s interesting, my husband knows I rely on him heavily for correction, not that I need as much as I once did, but I’m two wives worth of trouble on occasion and that his style is fairly abrubt is ultimately a blessing. I once “felt” it was disrespectful (of course), but the truth is it is profoundly the opposite.

    I think it behooves us to remember that a wife is not a child to be disciplined in the same way you would a child.

    Agreed, but the model has informed our parenting style as well, it’s a good one, I think – we don’t give warnings or count to three. The rules are laid out, clear, and generous, and the line is vivid, precisely because we respect their their natures and their intelligence. No one is in trouble around here, much, because of it. A husand/father is not a jailer responsible for a bunch of corrupt charges, and some wives attempt to use that model to excuse their own bad behavior and that of their children.

     
  39. CL

    April 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Just chiming in to add my agreement to Elspeth’s statement. A man disciplining a woman as though she were a child shouldn’t be necessary (although a comparison/analogy could be made for illustrative purposes and to annoy Jennifer).

     
  40. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    @ CL: “(although a comparison/analogy could be made for illustrative purposes and to annoy Jennifer)”

    LOL! You know she’s lurking, waiting to pounce.

    Or, will discover this six months or six years hence, and pounce then. ;)

     
  41. CL

    April 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Right now she’s busy flirting with me at LGR’s so I’m keeping her busy.
    Too “Unfinished” to Have a Baby

     
  42. Svar

    April 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Hey, CL, send her this song:

    Tell her it’s from the Men of Patriactionary.

     
  43. CL

    April 9, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    @ Svar

    She seems to have disappeared after deleteing her last comment. Maybe the lesbian secks fantasy finally got her off, because damn, she’s been all over the ‘sphere looking for abuse the past couple of days.

     
  44. 7man

    April 9, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Jennifer is infamous. Wherever Jennifer goes she incites and invites harsh treatment. Where is TFH when he is needed?

    Dominant men create tingles, but many women have massive guilt about this. Some women work themselves into a lather and then may rub it out, only to disappear until the next cycle of release is due. They don’t realize that the dynamic they resist is actually a sexual longing. Women go crazy from repressed and self-denied sexuality.

     
  45. Svar

    April 9, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    I forgot to mention “with much love.” When you do send that video to Jen, CL, say it is from the Men of Patriactionary, with much love.

     
  46. Svar

    April 9, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Jen’s use of the English language has always amused me.

     
  47. CL

    April 9, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    LOL @ “from the Men of Patriactionary, with much love”. I’ll keep it in the wings for the next time she’s ovulating I guess.

    She certainly paints some vivid pictures with her words; it really is a talent. ::shudder:: Why has no good Christian man with good leadership qualities snapped that one up?!

     
  48. 7man

    April 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    @Svar
    Shooting fish in a barrel is more difficult than baiting correcting Jennifer on a blog.
    As to the deleted comment, I think she suffers from premature ejac-ommentation.

     
  49. canecaldo

    April 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Man, what a waste of a blog post.

     
  50. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    @ Cane Caldo: “Man, what a waste of a blog post.”

    Why, because we have fun digressions way off-topic? The original post is still there, we can still discuss it; I don’t see how digressions ‘waste’ posts…

     
  51. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    At any rate, we will do and say what we please on our blog; if others like it, they’re free to join in. If they don’t, they don’t have to. Canada, the U.S., and most Western countries are still free, for now.

     
  52. 7man

    April 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    The Jennifer sidetrack was not totally off topic. She is an example of a leaderless woman that refuses to be led. She acts like a loose cannon, and goes off in when the slightest spark is provided.

    She is a poster woman for the egalitarian model. Now if she showed herself to be content and happy, her ideals might be worth consideration. But alas, women are rarely content when leaderless, defiant to leadership or hitched to a man that cannot lead.

     
  53. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    Good points, 7man.

     
  54. Svar

    April 9, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    Will, Cane is as much of a fan of Jen as we are. I think that was what he was implying.

     
  55. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    @ Svar: I see. I didn’t think he thought otherwise, actually; I was thinking perhaps he was implying that she wasn’t worth our taking time and space here to talk about her. Come to think of it, I find myself not without some measure of sympathy for such a way of thinking (whether or not anyone here holds it). But nevertheless, I also see no issue in a bit of harmless sport. :)

     
  56. will

    April 10, 2012 at 2:03 am

    To submit to husband is imperative according to the bible yet husband cannot quote the bible about submission to woman. Well at least there is game. Otherwise its the goddamn infection of feminism or the curse of eve causing resistance to the imperative to submission of husband.

     
  57. David Collard

    April 10, 2012 at 2:31 am

    will, just about every woman, especially a Christian woman, knows that scripture tells her to submit to her husband as the head. The problem is that it can always be explained away, if a woman tries hard enough. She will find an escape clause. It is easier for her, and for him, if she is a bit turned on by him, and therefore more willing to submit. If the man is “cute” enough, she will submit, in almost all cases. In earlier times, just being a man was enough to make a lady swoon. But these days, men are not given much credit, simply as men. So, Game …

     
  58. Jennifer

    April 14, 2012 at 2:43 am

    Awww, I caught this from CL’s blog, which I got from Laura’s blog; how sweet to know I’m being thought of! LOL CL, I deleted my last post to you because arguing was ridiculous at that point. 7man, if you really think I desire a creep like TFH, you’re a bonifide fool. But that kind of projection onto every woman’s character is what keeps us from having anything close to a real conversation most of the time. I don’t look for abuse, I look in clueless hope for a ground I think I can be heard from.

     
  59. Jennifer

    April 14, 2012 at 2:44 am

    For the most part, 7man, I am happy. Any unhappiness comes from the niggling fear I haven’t yet uprooted that insanity on the net might be true, and reminders of how far the world’s fallen.

     
  60. Jennifer

    April 14, 2012 at 2:46 am

    “She certainly paints some vivid pictures with her words; it really is a talent. ::shudder:: Why has no good Christian man with good leadership qualities snapped that one up?!”

    CL, that is the sweetest damn thing you’ve ever said about me. Shucks, thanks.

     

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 277 other followers