when virile goes viral: more muddled complementarianism

 

“Neither a title, a degree, nor desire makes someone a leader. Being a leader is based upon three elements: a calling from God, character that honors God, and the competencies that enable the person to effectively pursue the vision God entrusts to them.”  ~  George Barna

 

In the midst of reading and thinking about genuine complementarity the past couple of weeks, especially how it looks in its application, I was hit with yet one more example of “mainstream complementarianism” that has been wading in patriocentric waters. This time it is the Gospel Coalition, one of those websites I read often because they frequently offer insightful articles on applying the gospel message within our culture.

A week ago, GC writer, Jared Wilson, ignited a firestorm when he quoted patriocentrist Doug Wilson (no relation) while trying to explain why Christian women are reading 50 Shade of Grey. Basically, he thinks it is because we don’t understand Biblical authority and submission in the marriage bed and he goes on to quote from Fidelity: What it Means to Be a One-Woman Man:

“A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours.”

– Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87.

 

To say many Gospel Coalition readers were stunned is to put it mildly. After several big name bloggers reacted and women who had been sexually abused responded, a collective appeal to remove this piece was sent to GC but to no avail. In fact, both Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson responded with their take on the situation: everyone who read and had a problem with these paragraphs is basically too dumb to understand their deep wisdom and obviously we have reading comprehension issues.

I see two aspects to this that I find very troubling:

First, these guys obviously have some weird ideas about sex. (My reading comprehension is just fine.) My college psychology professor would label it “sessual hanup” (imagine his pronounced Chinese accent for the full affect) and I agree. Any man who feels the need to declare the sexual relationship between a husband and wife to be one of authority and submission needs more Motown.

He also needs a better understanding of the Word of God:

“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.  For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Wilson has already been coming under the scrutiny of the Wartburg Watch ladies this past week for a variety of reasons, including his pro-slavery stand and involvement with the courtship of a pedophile in his congregation. But Wilson is not the only complementarian/patriarch who has some pretty weird views of marital sexuality. The Bayly brothers (PCA pastors) once wrote about their aversion to birth control, describing the need for men, the “piercers” to “unsheathe their swords” when having sexual relations with their wives, the “piercees.” Gets me in the mood.

And then there is James McDonald’s Valentine’s Day quoting of Victor Hugo in describing the bride in her wedding night chamber as “gently alarmed and sweetly terrified” by “the husband the priest.” Perhaps in other circles, this would be merely a literary contribution but coming from patrios who teach the concept of the husband as “prophet, priest, and king” of the home, and in the context of Wilson’s Fidelity book, which McDonald promotes on his church website, it goes far beyond literature.

My second concern, however, proves just why Doug Wilson and others, including anyone at the Gospel Coalition who supported this article, should not be regarded as leaders of anything. Refusing to answer sincere questions put to them in a straightforward manner, declaring those questions to be the lack of ability people have to read with intelligence, and being so culturally unaware of how someone might react to these words, especially a woman with the burden of sexual abuse in her past, shows, once again, that the paradigm of manly men and their authority structure is more important than “being kind, one to another.”

I am waiting for someone who is a true leader and who holds to complementarianism to take on this recent nonsense.   Cue crickets.

 
Related articles:

Will the Real Complimentarian Please Stand Up?  

More Complementarian Schitzophrenia:  This Time from Tim Challies

What’s the Angle on Complementarianism?

 photo Blog__Sidebar_Hello_zps79b9481b.png

Comments

  1. says

    I guess I just have a hard time understanding why patriocentrists have to make everything about authority and submission. This may sound rude because I am having a hard time loving these brothers, but what is next? Claiming that a woman’s cycle is a show of submission because of the flow of blood (blood usually flows because something has been “pierced”: stabbings, needles drawing blood, etc.)? Breastfeeding is a show of needing to be under submission because another human (the child) conquers the mother by taking from her (breastmilk)?

    The bigger thing that is bothering me is where are the Christian leaders standing up to say “NO! This is wrong!” The more these men remain unchallenged in their errant thinking, the more it is going to creep up into our churches.

  2. Jennifer says

    This is just disturbing! I have learned a lot about the patriarchal movement from you and your links during the past couple of months. It really gives me a sick feeling in my stomach! I’m glad you are sharing this information. Being informed helps us be prepared for the nicely packaged junk that is sent our way! (Vision Forum catalogs, “Christian” homeschool sites, etc.) Thank you.

  3. Nellie says

    I see on the GC website that he finally took the post down and issued an apology. Nonetheless, I think it’s disturbing and just plain strange that he didn’t realize how upsetting this would be to many people. His wife must be so proud of the conquering way in which he discusses sexual relations. The whole thing is just plain weird.

  4. says

    “His wife must be so proud of the conquering way in which he discusses sexual relations.” Nellie, I know. I’ve thought several times how creepy I would find it if my husband talked about sex in public in those terms – how people would look at me and wonder about things that aren’t their business, and that normally they wouldn’t wonder about but he brought it up. And if I didn’t agree with his characterization of the sex we were having, I’d have to either keep my mouth shut about it or fight with him about sex in public, which would be even worse. I hope at least that he talked with her before he posted that stuff.

    But it is a gracious apology.

  5. says

    This is a good comment by Adam that he left on my FB page. It has so much great information, I didn’t want to forget to share it here:

    Doug Wilson is part of the Federal Vision. His views on things like this are, shall we say, very weird. I recognized the notion of penetration being a sign of subjection and conquering, because it has been used before. Just read these articles by Steve Schlissel, who is also a part of the Federal Vision:

    http://americanvision.org/​2745/​body-modification-the-retur​n-to-paganism/

    http://americanvision.org/​2752/​body-modification-and-a-chr​ist-rejecting-culture/

    As I said, the hermeneutics of these folks are very, very weird. It is part of what is dubbed “Interpretive Maximalism.” Greg Bahnsen heavily criticized this interpretive methodology before he died:

    http://www.cmfnow.com/​articles/pb075.htm

    since David Chilton, who wrote a major commentary on Revelation, “Days of Vengeance” used it in his Revelation commentary, and sat in on Bahnsen’s lectures on Revelation. Bahnsen wanted to make it clear that he wanted no part of this interpretive methodology.

    My concerns are much the same as Bahnsen’s. There is simply no control over this methodology. There is no way to tell whether the structure is something the author intended, or whether it is something that merely comes from the imagination of the interpreter. This kind of interpretation is reminiscent of the interpretive methodologies of Origin, and the typological methodologies of the Alexandrian school. In fact, I remember that I was in James White’s chat channel when he first heard of IM, and he read this line from Bahnsen’s critique:

    “Those benefited with “sufficient imagination” can allegedly see the significance in the “literary architecture” of particular Biblical texts—the way the story is told, even its minor details, what its imagery has in common with other stories, the number of times words are repeated, etc. (pp. 36-37). For instance, because doorposts could be likened to legs, Jordan claims that the passover blood smeared on doorposts corresponds to the blood of circumcision—which in turn is equivalent to the tokens of virginity from the wedding night (I am not kidding; cf. The Law of the Covenant, pp. 82-83, 252-258).”

    and exclaimed “Origin has risen from the dead!” While Doug Wilson has not bought into this hermeneutic as much as folks like Schlissel an Leithart, he still is not adverse to using it. This hermeneutic is very dangerous, and, as far as I can tell, is something that has the power to undo the authority of scripture, and put, in its place, the literary imaginations of man. That is why this concerns me so much.

  6. says

    There must be some sort of trend…the excerpts I read from Mark Driscoll’s book would have made me very uncomfortable as his wife.

  7. Anthea says

    Hello Karen

    “First, these guys obviously have some weird ideas about sex. (My reading comprehension is just fine.) My college psychology professor would label it “sessual hanup” (imagine his pronounced Chinese accent for the full affect) and I agree. Any man who feels the need to declare the sexual relationship between a husband and wife to be one of authority and submission needs more Motown.”

    This was so funny I totally could not summon up the necessary outrage at the rest of the article. I suppose you know where my mind is going, dontcha? Exactly which tracks should be prescribed for these men? Smokey? Temptations? Why not try some cool slick Philly soul? Or the gentle Curtis Mayfield? Perhaps they could jump across the Atlantic and try some UB40 …

  8. Anthea says

    “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    What’s with the bad pastiche of D H Lawrence? See, now I’m envisioning Oliver Reed and Alan Bates behind the pulpit.

    That Mr Wilson has a lot to answer for.

    From your friend the film lover.

  9. Nellie says

    Why are so many of these guys obsessed with sex? Why is it they harp on authority / submission as some sort of sin or moral issue (even though what that looks like is nebulous) but they seem to have no conviction about an appropriate and edifying way in which to discuss the intimate. We are to be edifying and wholesome in our speech. Yes, sometimes we have to discuss the unpleasant or personal but there’s a line these guys seem to cross. I have no desire to read Driscoll’s book based on what I’ve read about it. I don’t want to fill my mind with some sort of shocking tell-all, and I certainly don’t need a “manual” as well. I feel like such books feed more base, voyeuristic tendencies.

  10. Anthea says

    You know, his is the first name that comes to mind, but I did not know if an upright godly American grand-matriarch would entirely approve of the burly baritone of LURVE …

    I was discussing Composer Study with my friend who does Charlotte Mason, and I said, “Oh we just talk about music all day, esp when Andy starts talking about the history of reggae with the children. Or, I play guess the vocalist on Jazz FM — it’s Michael Buble — no, it’s Mel Torme!”

    “Oh, you’re doing it, then…”

  11. says

    Nellie, C.S. Lewis said this about dirty jokes, and I’m paraphrasing because I don’t know where to go to find the actual quote:

    There are two kinds of dirty jokes: the kind you tell because they’re funny, and the kind you tell because they’re an excuse to use gutter language.

    I’m guessing there’s a similar dichotomy that could be made regarding books about sex, even books that refer to it as Christian marital relations.

    (Thatmom, giggling about Andrea’s “upright godly American grand-matriarch”.)

  12. says

    I’m giggling, too as long as she said “upright” and not “uptight!”

    One of these days I am going to write about the need for more Motown and what that represents. Seriously, these people approach marriage and courtship like it is some contract. Can’t imagine that…and I think the “sparks” are a big part of what keeps marriage alive.

  13. Anthea says

    Hello Karen

    I read some of the posts, both the male and female end of the Wilson clan. Having met some of them, I think there is a bit of a culture clash here. When I read the one called something like “That’s fighting talk”, I laughed. I thought it was a bit close to the bone, but funny.

    But you know, we British revere a good sense of humour, and we want to be seen as people who can have a larf. ( I couldn’t help thinking that a *British* Rachel Held Evans would have sent a witty reply challenging Miss Wilson to handbags at dawn.) However, although many of the Wilson family have a liking for British, nay English culture, it’s not necessarily that portable. One British comedian came a cropper when he hosted the Golden Globes (?) and did exactly the sort of ego-puncturing of celebrities that was his trademark back in the UK. He was criticised for what was typical award ceremony fare back home.

    I get a sense that assorted Wilsons aspire to a sort of vituperative satire that is seen as intellectual and refined, harking back to the 18th and C19th. Perhaps this is why Douglas Wilson seemed to gel with Christopher Hitchens. In High Culture, that satire still has a limited place.

    Here’s the thing, though. In the *real* world of relationships, we Brits are the reverse of you warm and cuddly Yanks. You are nice to your friends, and rude to people you don’t like. We are warm to our friends, but to our real ‘mates’, we are SO rude. Esp men, ha ha. Men will say things like, “All right Jim, you old git, I haven’t seen you in ages. I thought you were dead.” “You wish, you mean.” My friend was at my house, and said she would have to make her way home, so gathered her things and assorted children, and said goodbye. So my dh is showing her out. I go to the kitchen, come back and say, “Have you not gone home yet? Are you STILL here?” “I thought you could put me up for the night.” “NO way. Go on, get lost. You’ve eaten enough of my food.” Then we fell about laughing.

    It is those in the outer circle, people who are to be endured who are treated to the limited diet of politeness and good form. Perhaps the Wilsons just need to be more American. (Yes, I did type that.) If they want to come over all tough and take the mickey out of people, then they should come over *here* and do it. (As long as they can take it back, of course.)

  14. Anthea says

    I know, it added absolutely nothing to the debate, esp as I did type ‘upright’.

  15. Monique says

    Doug Wilson’s response was so typical, vile and arrogant. I felt “assaulted” all over by his pride and arrogance….but then I think he enjoys and gets a sick pleasure from it all. Why haven’t any complementarians called him out on these bully tactics? As Karen said, cue crickets….

  16. Robyn says

    I read Wilson’s follow up post. Wow. Smug, flippant, and arrogant. Is there any attempt on the part of those men to be humble and Christlike?

  17. Robyn says

    Sorry, should have clarified- Doug Wilson’s post was flippant. Jared’s apology was not smug or arrogant. Although I do get the feeling that he’s not sorry for thinking what he wrote – he’s just sorry he wrote it.

  18. Anthea says

    Hello Karen,

    Well, I made a mistake, and I’m very sorry. I read the flippant post from Doug Wilson’s daughter, and I thought they were ill-judged in tone, as I explained. When they came en masse to a home education conference, I got the feeling that they were sort of homesick for Oxbridge, and wanted to be part of that world. (Even though it’s a fantasy of “dreaming spires”.) And I thought that was it — over-the-top joshing.

    But now I am focusing on the Wartburg Watch postings about child abuse within Doug Wilson’s church. Wow. I dunno if there should be any blogging going on, whilst the church in Moscow is so clearly not functioning as it should. Writing witty articles and making speeches looks really sick when something like that has been occuring in the church.

    Sorry Karen. I did not know the other issues going on with this preacher, and should not have commented until I did.

  19. says

    Robyn, I was disturbed by a comment Jared left on Wilson’s latest article. If it is the same Jared, that tone of his detractors being dummies was still there. Both Wilsons aside, I am watching to see any good response from the Gospel Coalition group; I am very disappointed in their embracing of Doug Wilson. Even aside from all his personal failures, the Federal Vision theology, imo, places him outside of orthodoxy. We’ll let Jon Zens talk about that…..it is one of those doctrines that families need to be aware of as they consider FIC’s.

  20. Vanessa S says

    Yellow flags went up for me when I first saw John Piper and Doug Wilson together. They didn’t seem like such a good pair to me and I honestly thought Piper must had lowered his standard or Wilson was raising his. Sadly, I feel Piper is coming under the “spell” of Wilson. His arrogance has always turned me off since we had friends that put him on a pedestal next to Jesus. Their entire mannerism changed as they studied Wilson. Even going so far as traveling from the Mid-West to his church in Idaho to have their children baptized by him. I have not spoken with them in ~6 yrs as we’ve moved away. But I shudder to think how they would defend Wilson. Sad really.

    Your link to “A Time To Laugh” (above) where he states:

    Person-With-Power says a horrible thing.
    Persons-with-Common-Sense say “No, no, no. That’s horrible.”
    PWP feels a twinge of conviction. Instead of apologizing, he doubles down and claims PsWCS misunderstood.
    PWP waxes eloquent with irrelevant and incoherent abstractions.
    PsWCS get flummoxed and exhausted and walk away.

    and: fundamentalists don’t confess when they’ve “made a mistake” (i.e. sin). They just “grow.”

    These are true statements when it comes to those I’ve encountered who follow Wilson. Sad. Very Sad. And I pray for all those deceived under his teaching.

  21. Laura says

    Are we noticing a pattern with these patriarchal guys, in that every perversion of sexuality happens because we women don’t “know our place”?

    First, we had the remarks by Voddie B. about why men seek out young women…It is their inattentive daughters’ fault!

    Then, we learn from Mr. Wilson that a (repentant ?) pedophile is all fixed up now, having gotten a wife. That should take care of him. Perhaps that’s all the poor chap was looking for.

    Now, we are taught that the reason for S&M sex is due, also, to our stepping out of our proper role in marriage.

    Is there anything wrong with humankind that these radicals cannot trace back to woman as the source of evil? I used to think that the old feminist mantra that men hate women was ridiculous. Now, I am not so sure that it is not often true- at least in the Patriarch world.

  22. Robyn says

    I was mulling all this over tonight on my walk. I recently had a conversation with a friend about Eldredge’s “WIld at Heart,” series, and why I dislike it. It’s all the SAME THING. Eldredge is just a tamer version of Wilson. All of these men are taking “natural human desires” and trying to find religious justification for them. And they’ve reached the point where they all believe their own press. The ONE THING that drew me back to Christ, after many years of searching, was that fundamentally He is NOT about living enslaved to out “natural human desires.” Other religions pander to what people (ahem – men…) want to do anyway; only Christ calls us to sacrifice, die, lay it all down. And then do it again tomorrow. And only through Christ could anyone possible live in such a way. It’s a hard way to live, and it doesn’t do much for the ego. I’ve often thought that as women, we are lucky that we get to experience dying to self so literally when we bear children. (It doesn’t always stick of course – but the lesson is there to be had, in a very tangible way). I’m reading D Wilson, and I’m thinking of ego. Of laying down self out of love for others. Of the fruits of the spirit… where are they? How can anyone read his followup post and see love, kindness, gentleness …. oh, I’m rambling. I’ve lurked here for a long time and haven’t commented in a while, but this has really got me stewing. 🙂

  23. says

    Laura, when you begin to list all those things in one place it really is very telling! You know, I know so many, many men who do not think like this. I hate it that this influence is in the church and trying to make “manly men” out of the real men. One reason I believe it has been so effective is that Barna’s research from last summer has shown how many women are leaving the church in droves. This is something that weighs heavy on my heart….many, many conservative Christian women are leaving the organized church because the see no place where they fit in. The emphasis on gender roles and making the patriocentric teachings central has left them feeling isolated and irrelevant. Indeed, where are they to go?

  24. Laura says

    Well, we have found our way to a liturgical church that is totally removed from the fundie/patriarch community, but that is Christ centered, Protestant and pro-life. Women function here and are treated normally. I am not naming the church because I am not trying to “sell” this denomination- rather, I am saying that after a long and contemplative “divorce” from the “neo-Calvinist” church, I feel refreshed and enthusiastic. This is a new start. There is so little room for egotistical and opinionated preaching here.

    So,there is hope! Don’t give up! There are churches that are orthodox, Biblical, and don’t give a flip about the latest book on manly men or girlie women. I hope that women, men, and families can hang on to the truth that Christ is so much more than the oppressive message that so many men are putting out there!

  25. Leila says

    Vanessa, you remarked “I feel Piper is coming under the “spell” of Wilson.”

    Wilson IS spellbinding. I witnessed this first hand when our children enrolled in a classical Christian school that was part of Wilson’s school movement. I witnessed changes in many adults who came under the spell of Wilsonian philosophy, and it was troubling indeed. I truly don’t get what the appeal is. A friend of mine refers to Wilson as “the meanest man in Christendom,” and I have to agree. Why are people so drawn to this darkness?

  26. Vanessa S says

    I wasn’t able to view that specific one but I think I found it on regular YouTube – interesting in the one I watched he jousted that Doug knows what he’s talking about he just has “people around him that are dumb”. Hmmm….

    Leila – I know exactly what you’re talking about as we have friends that are swoon by him, and don’t understand why others aren’t. Oh! That’s right we must be unintelligent and not able to understand. It is scary. You mentioned the Classical school – I’m wondering if the Classical Conversation classes (more like a co-op I think) is also under his influence?

  27. says

    I fixed that link so it works now.

    Leila, I have heard the same testimony from others who were taking all their schooling cues from Doug Wilson. Not long ago I heard a very sad story of an entire church that imploded when the influence permeated throughout the whole congregation. There is a lot of arrogance in the whole scene.

    I am not real familiar with Classical Conversations but understand it is much more relaxed and takes the good parts of the classical method and runs with it. Anyone else have any thoughts on that?

  28. Susan T says

    I was curious Karen, so did some searching. This link gives the Classical Conversations author’s background: aerospace engineer turned SAHM becomes homeschooler by paying professionals to teach her to teach, creates own materials(1984-1989) and is considered “experienced” by the time she has two children ages 6 and 4. And does reference reading Doug Wilson’s educational theory books in the early-mid ’90’s. http://leighbortins.com/homeschooler/

    here is a link for a review from last summer…
    http://growingwisely.com/2011/07/01/homeschool-resource-review-classical-conversations/
    “At the Essentials and Challenge levels, the knowledge, teaching ability, and enthusiasm of the tutor will play an increasingly role. The materials themselves are not exceptional, so benefit will depend on the community experience. If the writing component of the Essentials program is well-presented, and if parents follow up with teaching and assignments at home, students can learn writing skills and habits that will serve them well in their advanced studies. I’m not convinced that the intensive grammar component is necessary—especially for three years in a row. Leigh Bortins is a huge proponent of grammar, claiming that it is study of grammar that produces good writers. I suspect that she has chosen the strategy that works best for her—she seems analytically minded, and I have read enough of her work to know that she is not a natural writer. I’m concerned that students who don’t share this analytical bent would not benefit significantly from such intensive grammar and may instead develop a distaste for language arts.”.

    My immediate guess is that any Wilson connection is only the similar analytical personality. Beyond that, I am usually skeptical of programs which cost $400 for a family plus $300 per student up front/non-refundable for a one day/week program. And in this case, the begin quasi-formal training below age 10 does not jive with my educational philosophy & experience.

  29. says

    Susan, thanks for the research. That price is pretty steep but I don’t think it deters too many people as this is probably the number one most sought after curriculum choice right now.

    You pointed out some good things I hope no one misses….

    The woman who is behind this has children who, at their young ages and if brain research over the past 40 years is accurate, should be spending most of their time learning by playing. I know that after I posted the article on Minimalist Homeschooling, the “old homechool moms,” as John Stonestreet calls us, think this is a truth that has been cast aside in favor of cool curriculum. We need to reel it back in every chance we get.

    I have been told that Classical Conversations is the kinder gentler version of classical education that combines the trivium with some Charlotte Mason and unit studies. But when I see those prices, all I see is all that money to spend on real books!!!! 😉

  30. Susan T says

    Yes Karen $ to spend on real books and real experiences, often outside of a building…

    Do want to point out though that this author/ founder’s children are between ours now in age. I just thought it funny that her bio lists her as being experienced – years ago- at a time when her first two boys were ages 6 & 4 and this was before she read Wilson, wrote her own curriculum, and launched CC. She is experienced now that her kids are grown 😉

    OT This CC curriculum does seem to be mentioned the most, lately, and it is probably a good fit for some families. I have nothing against it for kids over age 8-10. I just happen to be weary of the undercurrent I keep bumping into in homeschool-land, that to be a legitimate hs’er, you MUST be in a co-op, or classes or _____. . And most of these come with a price tag not all families can afford. I thought that after all these years we would be past this…. I know there are some fine groups out there that are meaningful and helpful at different stages of hs’ing and not twaddle, but they should not be thought of as more credible than a simple life at home w/intentional parents providing a more relaxed, outside the box, experience. We have more free resources than ever and all kinds of online groups that we didn’t have before (at the earliest @1997). And I will continue to suggest, along with you, that young children- under age 8-10, learn best thru play and without formal settings. Research backs this. Dr. David Elkind has spoken this for years (MisEducation and The Hurried Child) – Stepping off my soap box…

  31. says

    Thanks, Susan for that background! The fact that there is soooo much available for homeschoolers now blows my mind. It is especially cool that there are so many free resources; it means that paradigm peddlars don’t have quite the control they once did! 😉 And because you are a mom of three terrific kids, I love it when you climb up on the soapbox. We have much to learn from you!!!!!

  32. Susan T says

    Karen,
    To God be the glory…how He has blessed all of us! You are so encouraging. I am so thankful that you, a true Berean and experienced mom of 6, began this blog for truth and grace and provide all of us with a comment section to discuss things and created new words, i.e. partriocentricity… and gave a name to Relationship Homeschooling, etc…. God bless you!

  33. Joe Dokes says

    Men Believe They Are Allowed to Dominate Women?!?

    I have become alarmed and sickened at modern male “Christians”, and worse yet “preachers”, who teach that Yahweh allows and even instructs men to dominate women in every area and aspect of life, up to and including sexual intercourse in the marriage bedroom (or wherever their unrestrained proclivities may demand it).
    This selfish, childish, disobedient, and even satanic theory appears to have become epidemic throughout the “young turk” preacher set who all seem to fancy themselves the next great reformist, or enlightener, or televangelist con-man, or (fill-in-the-blank). I can only attribute this pandemic to one or more of the following:

    1. No attendance of a reputable Bible training institute that actually understands Hebrew
    2. Attendance of a reputable Bible institute and sleeping through Hebrew class
    3. Overactive testosterone levels that cause willful ignorance of Hebrew
    4. Quenching and Ignoring the Holy Spirit / Hagios Pneuma / Ruwach of Yahweh
    5. No conversion of mind or choice to obey Jesus, the Messiah of Yahweh
    6. Actually being an agent of the deceiver / destroyer who has taken the form of an “angel of light” and is really a demon in disguise, bent on destroying Christianity from the inside

    Yes, you read that correctly. I am accusing many of the new-preachers-on-the-block of really being servants of the devil and not being anything remotely close to a Christian servant/slave of Jesus, the living Words of Yahweh. If you believe I am hiding behind the safety of the internet and would not accuse you to your face you are very, very, VERY wrong. In May of 2008, I was in Iraq during Operation Charge of the Knights and walked through Basra, Iraq, with the 1st ANGLICO Marines as we liberated the city from Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Iran Army insurgents who were burning people alive. I think accusing a preacher-boy to his face would be a whole lot easier than that little “vacation.”
    Actually, you should be grateful I am not accusing you to your face. I have stepped up to quite a number of “preachers” after I heard them teaching lies and pretending it was the words of Yahweh. The last liar I confronted was in August, 2012, when he taught; and I quote:

    “If Rahab the lying whore” [he repeated that so many times I swear it gave him an erotic pleasure] “was not in the lineage of Jesus then Jesus never would have been born because it takes the DNA from both parents to create the child.”

    If that statement caused no alarm in your head you need to read it again since the Holy Spirit, who interprets scripture for His servants, is not active in your life. To explain: If Jesus had the DNA from both parents it means Jesus did not have a virgin birth. This man who pastors a huge, uber-mega-sized church in Porter Ranch, California, does not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. I was nose-to-nose with that lying satanist immediately following the message. He dismissed me and continues to teach the lie. I was obviously not “persuasive” enough in my argument. Perhaps I need to study the argumentation methods of Paul-of-Tarsus vs. Peter / Barnabas a bit more. The real crime is that the satanic preacher of Porter Ranch is allowed to continue teaching that lie, that the people believe the lie, and he undermines the faith, and subsequently the salvation, of the entire congregation.

    Domination of Women is a Satanic Lie

    Whatever the reason is that caused this modern misogyny of dominating women must stop! If I MUST get nose-to-nose with you then I will, believe me. “Christians” in this country are becoming more and more Muslim by the hour. I truly fear that the illustration found in Romans 11:21 might actually be happening to the Gentile church. If so, count me among the Jews.

    It appears from the various blogs and other website based forums I have stumbled upon, that this new oppression of women by those pretending to be “Christian” men is based on the Genesis account of Yahweh’s curse on women after Adam’s disobedience against Yahweh’s command. I do write “Adam’s disobedience” since it was Adam who was given the command and was totally responsible to relay that command to Eve, thereby fulfilling Yahweh’s designed hierarchy of His created order.
    Those who disagree must read Genesis 1:28-30 closely. Yahweh tells both Adam and Eve, obviously at separate times, the following only:

    1. Be fruitful and multiply
    2. Replenish the earth
    3. Subdue it and have dominion over the fish, birds and land animals
    4. Eat any herb and fruit of fruit trees you wish (no denial – only permission)

    Absolutely no mention was given by Yahweh to Eve about NOT eating the tree of knowledge. Yahweh gave that order to Adam and only Adam. Read Genesis 2:16-17 where Yahweh told Adam, before Eve was created, that Adam was not to eat the tree of knowledge. Yahweh never told Eve about the tree of knowledge but she knew about it since she is the one who answered the serpent and not Adam. Modern “man” will still let the woman take charge and answer the accuser instead of stepping-up and taking the lead, which is their created duty.
    After Adam acts like a punk-chump-jerk, he allows Eve to take the lead, fails to protect her from disobeying Yahweh, and then joins Eve in the disobedience Adam allowed her to commit in the first place. Wow, what a man. Yahweh has no choice but to punish these disobedient children. The form of that punishment is grossly abused by men since it is so horribly misunderstood. Yahweh told Eve:

    ‘ishshah, ‘amar, “rabah rabah `itstsabown herown `etseb yalad ben, teshuwqah ‘iysh mashal” (phonetically transliterated Hebrew – Gen. 3:16)

    The mechanical translation of that Hebrew statement into English says:

    “Mortal woman, I say, ‘increase, increase your worry in pregnancy to painfully create and birth a son, and you will desirously stretch out after a man to rule.”

    Nowhere does Yahweh say that a man will “rule over the woman”, which is to say “dominate” her. The very concept that male will rule over female in some dominant fashion cannot be supported anywhere in the Bible. Those who believe they are ordered to dominate women cannot point to Yahweh for those orders. Only the adversary of Yahweh desires to dominate.
    Those who claim Genesis 1:28 orders men to dominate women forget one very simple and glaring fact. Eve was told the exact same thing. Therefore, according to the screwed-up male translation of Genesis 1:28, women are ordered to dominate men. And this order happened while creation was perfect and before the failure of Adam to obey Yahweh. Does that mean Yahweh created Adam and Eve to each fight for domination over the other in the perfect earth He just finished? That is neither “good”, “very good”, nor perfection.
    The simple answer is “No.” Yahweh did not create strife, contention, argument, anger, bitterness or chaos. Those attributes come from the satanic Adversary, not Yahweh. To claim Genesis 1:28 orders men to dominate women is to call Yahweh a liar and agree with satan.

    Men Are Designed To Be Proactive and Lead Courageously

    Yahweh says that women will desire a man who will actually rule by taking the lead he was created for instead of letting Eve take the fault and even blaming her. Man will not dominate the woman since man is supposed to love the woman in the exact same way he loves himself and cares for himself. And even more importantly, man is supposed to love the woman in the same way Jesus loves her and is willing to die for her. If you will not take a bullet for her, you do not love her. In Iraq I was willing to take a bullet for people I never knew here in the U.S. How much more willing for someone I love?
    The way I read it, Yahweh’s curse to all women is what every woman cries over today and has cried over for centuries. That cry is, “Where are all the good men?!” This is the number one cry of women because men are so stupid. And they prove they are stupid by screwing up the words of Yahweh so they can abuse women on purpose. Even so-called “Christian” men want to abuse women and so they blame Yahweh for giving them the order to do it.
    Just like Adam, men still blame Yahweh for giving them the reason that causes disobedience instead of obeying out of love. In Adam, everyone dies. In Jesus, everyone can be made alive.

    Woman Was Designed To Help Man

    Does any man reading this even know what “help” means? I will tell you what it does NOT mean. “Help” does not mean that you tell the woman to “Get yo’ butt in that kitchen and make me a sammich!” That is called slavery you idiot. A woman is not your slave. She is not an automatic dish washer or sammich-maker. A woman is a child of Jesus, the Words of Yahweh. She will inherit heaven and is 100% equal with all men. All men who believe they are allowed to dominate women will be accused and convicted of abuse.
    In order for someone to help someone else, the person needing help has to be doing something. NO ONE can help someone who is doing nothing. If a man is doing nothing and demands the woman “help” him by doing dishes, clean house, or any other task, that man is an idiot. He is stupid. He is an abusive jerk who needs to be punched into reality.
    Yo! Man. If you want the woman to help you, then you must be doing something. If you want the woman to help cook then YOU must be cooking first. If you want the woman to help wash dishes, YOU must be washing dishes first. If you want the woman to help do laundry, YOU must be doing laundry first. Do you get the idea yet??

    If you still disagree then you need to study what Yahweh told 130 year-old Cain (Gen. 5:3) after he killed his little brother for being obedient. Get that? A 130 year-old man got mad at someone being obedient because he, himself, disobeyed Yahweh. What a putz. Here is what Yahweh told Cain:

    ‘im! Yatab! se’eth yatab! chatta’ah rabats pethach teshuwqah mashal (phonetically transliterated Hebrew – Gen. 4:7)

    The mechanical translation of that Hebrew phrase into English is:

    Yo! Do well! Elevate and do well! The consequence of failure is to crouch at an opening and desirously stretch out after ruling.

    Yahweh demands obedience, not sacrifice. He demands we “Elevate and do well.” If a man does NOT do well that man will desire to rule over and dominate women instead of loving them in the same way Jesus loves her and will die for her. The fact that men who pretend to be “Christian” choose to dominate women instead of loving them proves they are not “Elevating and doing well.” They are suffering the consequence of failing to obey Yahweh and desire to rule over and dominate women, not love them. Unfortunately, women are suffering from the domination of disobedient, sinful men and not experiencing unconditional love as Jesus wants to give them.

    But Yahweh Orders Women to Submit

    If you as a male-gendered idiot truly believes that Yahweh orders a women to succumb to your every whim then you have absolutely no idea what submit means. I was military. I know exactly what submit means. I spent many years submitting to authority, some good, some not-so-good, and some downright useless. When that authority became abusive I did NOT submit to it any longer. I visited the JAG office and removed the abusive authority.
    If you as a male-gendered idiot want to dominate the woman in your life you have become an abusive authority. Yahweh will crush you because He loves her more than you do. The problem is that the woman may suffer undue stress while you are being crushed. So, mister man, stop being a dominating, disobedient, sinful jerk and learn what Yahweh says about how to treat the woman in your life.
    By the way – she actually OWNS you, fella. You are HER property and she gets to tell YOU what to do and if SHE does not want YOU going to hang out with the guys tonight, then you do NOT go hang out with the guys – get it?? What do you mean you don’t believe that she owns you? Go read 1 Corinthians 7:3-4.
    Now you tell me… who is supposed to submit to whom?

    A Message to Women

    Women, your only recourse for these little boys pretending to be men is to pray. Pray, pray, pray – then pray some more. Yahweh gave you Ruwach, the Holy Spirit who is here to help you. The Holy Spirit can change these little boys’ minds as easily as channeling water through a pipe. They are failing to protect you and love you just as Adam failed to protect Eve from being deceived by the serpent. Pray hard!
    Adam threw Eve under the bus by allowing her to take the first bite. After she did not fall down dead, Adam must have concluded it would be alright for him to eat it. After all, Yahweh must have been lying just as the serpent said He was. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she was forsaken and abandoned by the love of her life, Adam.
    Adam, however, chose to disobey the command he was given straight from the mouth of Yahweh who Adam knew was King. Adam also stood silent as he watched and allowed his wife, Eve, to be spiritually murdered by the serpent. Adam never stepped up to protect her even a little. Adam was the worst man ever and now we all pay the price.
    Please, please, please pray for us. I am not immune to being so stupid but at least I know how stupid I can be. These itinerate preacher-boys have NO idea how stupid they really are. What is worse is that they are teaching all other men-boys how to be equally stupid – and worse.

    A Final Note to Men

    For those of you who believe my translation of Genesis is “all screwed up” and that I “don’t know what I’m talking about” I challenge you to get a Hebrew Dictionary/Lexicon and do the research for yourself. Talk to a Rabbi or two for good measure. The English Bible is not terribly accurate when it comes to information about how Adam treated Eve and the repercussions that followed. This obviously began with King Jimmy (or before – probably before, as in… Nicaea) and no “man” has had the stones to call a bluff that has been around for hundreds or thousands of years.
    Why, that would mean hundreds of pastors have been teaching the wrong message for decades and would have to admit their mistake. It would mean Ph.D.’s may appear to not deserve their position or paycheck. Books and magazines would be subject to recall or revision and religious printing companies would lose money and prestige. Televangelists would face ridicule for their massive lies and network stock might fall.
    Since they all worship Mammon and not Messiah, since they all teach Tradition and not Truth, it must never change (sic). The temple money-changers are alive and well and living in the pulpits of the U.S.A. I pray that Jesus do the same to them as He did in Jerusalem.
    Since we all know men do NOT admit mistakes – or ask directions – change will most likely never happen. The well-established American religious system would rather teach a lie and destroy people than apologize and correct itself.
    Hey… preacher-boy… you really want to make a name for yourself? I think I know how you can do just that. But first, you need to become a man.

    Where are all the good men???

    Adonay Yahweh Elohiym, King Eternal with Supreme Strength, help us all learn the truth.

  34. says

    To Mr. Dokes…
    I do not wish to comment on your lengthy post (I do agree with some portions, however), but I am always a bit suspect when a post contains something called “mechanical Hebrew” with a supposed translation presented by someone who has not established his/her credentials as a Hebrew linguist. Translating biblical Hebrew into English is no easy task and very difficult for even seminary graduates. I suggest that when you offer translations of Hebrew you cite your source or your training if the translation is your own.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *