I ran across this post shortly after father’s day wherein the poster asks:
Where In the Bible…?
God’s “Design” for men and women. Where in the Bible can that word or even the concept be found? Can someone produce a scripture that specifically uses the words “God’s Design” in reference to men and women? And God blessed them and said unto them…have dominion.
On Father’s Day, the pastor preached about “roles” for men and women. Where in the Bible can the word “roles” be found? Can someone produce a single scripture containing that word?
He talked about the “authority” given to man over woman. What scripture says man was placed in authority over woman? You cannot serve two masters…We have one Lord even Christ….
He preached that man was woman’s protector. Where does the Bible say that? Scripture please!
The congregation was informed that woman needs protection for far more than just physical reasons. She needs protection emotionally, mentally and spiritually. How frail woman is! What specific verse of scripture says that man is woman’s protector? It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Now I’ve been following this blog for quite some time in an attempt to somehow understand how feminists see the church but this post struck me as not only a stark display of Biblically illiteracy but also indicative of something that has been damaging our churches in America for quite some time. Specifically, the infiltration of the thoroughly pagan feminist movement in the church which often shows up as egalitarianism or a view that men and women are completely interchangeable. So here is my response to the above post even though I realize the initial post was largely rhetorical in nature:
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. -1 Peter 3:7
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34
Those are two verses that come to mind.
Also, your exegesis of Gen 1:28 is a bit misleading and not a little misguided given the wider context. You see, while it is true that both were charged with the subduing of the earth they were not both held equally responsible. Specifically, even though we are told that the it was the woman who was deceived and ate of the fruit first the man, who was with her, was the first to be held accountable, “But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”” -Gen 3:9.
In fact, God’s attention does not turn to the woman until the man attempts to shift the blame onto her.
It is actually critical to note here that everything you railed against above is found in the first three chapters of Genesis.
I actually wonder why you bother going to church at all if your view of men and patriarchal authority is so low.
You do realize that God explicitly and exclusively defines himself in the masculine right? You do realize that Jesus came in the form of a man, right? You do realize that the helper He promised to send is exclusively defined in the masculine as well, right?
One of the responses I received included the statement:
Men like the poster above will never never never give up their perceived right to lord it over others!
To which I responded:
There is a vast difference between lording over someone and filling a role given by God Almighty.
I’m curious to know, however, why you automatically assume me to by misogynistic simply for answering the question above with clear biblical teaching.
If I didn’t know any better I would say that equality or truth are hardly what you are after here. Seems a lot like misandry to me.
Any condition placed upon a person solely on the basis of their intrinsic being– such as skin color or sex– is not a “role” to play but a statement of essence. Therefore, to say all women without exception must play a subservient role is a statement of inferiority of being.
That’s the logical refutation of the typical male supremacists argument. The theological one is that which has already been stated: that “not so among you” comes with no fine print exempting males; that “submit to one another” cannot be “doublespeak” for “some submit to others”; that Jesus came to free the oppressed– ALL of them–; that the Golden Rule cannot be negated by “pink and blue” hermeneutics.
Which all means that if you find a proof-text you can claim means males have privilege over females, you violate the over-arching teachings of Jesus and the apostle.
My final response:
When we talk about roles I think I would be helpful for us to keep in mind that these roles are only in reference to marriage.
My wife is not subject to any other man and even in our own relationship her free submission to me does not mean I am somehow better in essence than her.
Further, I find it remarkable that you believe your interpretation is right in the face of literally thousands of years of Christian and Jewish history where such interpretations you place on the texts such as the golden rule and “not so among you” would be (and are) seen as completely foreign. Are you really meaning to say that after nearly six thousand years of historical patriarchy you have been given special revelation to see the light?
You say that my interpretation violates the over-arching teachings of Jesus and the apostle (which one?) but looking back on a very long line of interpretational and anthropological history I am left scratching my head saying “huh?”
You see, I understand that you’ve apparently been infected with the same sort of militant feminism that has infected our culture. I get that. I also understand that you and others seem to think (again, along with out current culture) that men are somehow inherently evil.
As an aside I must point out that simple equality is hardly what you or others are advocating here and the evidence of that is how anyone like me who stands up for the biblical and traditional view of the roles of men and women is automatically labeled a misogynist (which itself smacks of misandry).
However what I fail to understand is how you can hold such thoroughly pagan views that have been blatantly borrowed from our current culture and with a straight face tell me that they are in the remotest sense Christian.
Like I said above, if you want to create your own religion that’s fine by me. However what you are doing is attempting to subvert biblical Christianity by importing concepts foreign to both Scripture and Church history.
In closing (and this will be my last comment on this thread) here are two lectures on the doctrine of biblical manhood and womanhood if anyone is interested in a serious study of the subject as opposed to baseless conjecture.
Two other helpful resources I forgot to mention above are my friend Wintry Knight’s blog and Dr Jennifer Roeback Morse’s blog. Both of these sites do a lot to uphold the traditional view of biblical manhood and womanhood and both of these blogs spend a great deal of time combating the societal disease known as the feminist movement.
Make no mistake about it, egalitarianism and the feminist movement are not about equality in any sense. They are about the wholesale destruction of the distinct and necessary roles of men and women. In this respect I view egalitarianism as an assault on Scripture and a noxious weed that needs to be stamped out with a vengeance wherever it is found.
BONUS: Here is an excellent article that answers the question “What is manliness?”