I find that, usually, if the progressives don't think I'm progressive enough and the conservatives don't think I'm conservative enough, I'm probably right where I should be -- which is where I think this article is, too ;D
My first instinct was to shudder and cancel Haunted Cosmos, which would break my heart, but that's such a Millenial/Gen Z cancel culture response of me.
Did you know that the word for "virtuous" in Proverbs 31 is originally the same Hebrew word used to describe King David as "valiant"? It's not some mousy, hidden-away idea of moral purity (not that I'm against moral purity), but rather, steadfast, unflinching fortitude. I wonder what some people would think of that.
As someone who was encouraged to relegate myself SOLELY to childcare and cooking roles in the Church (not just the church building but the Body of Christ, at large), I am only too familiar with the women-in-civil-discourse-hating mindset you were describing. I've seen how it causes women to despise, and sometimes eventually attempt to forsake, their gender. And I don't see Christ discouraging women to refrain from participating in civil discourse, either. Didn't the Samaritan woman at the well become His first, or one of His first, missionaries? Didn't He commend the Canaanite woman for challenging--CHALLENGING!!!!!--Him in Matthew 15?
I'm 100% preaching to the choir here, but I believe the hyper-conservative view of masculinity and femininity is every bit as political as the concept of gender being a social construct. It's just better disguised because it's easier to distort the Bible verses that way. And if that's what women are being told, doesn't it make sense that they no longer want to be women?
Yeeees. Also I first heard that idea “too progressive for conservatives and too conservative for progressives” from the And Campaign and I love it. I agree that when you find yourself there you’re probably on the right track! (I find myself there a lot so that’s what I’m hoping anyway)
The Gospel from last Sunday (Mk 9:30-37): Apostles arguing over which among them is the greatest. Jesus says well if you want to be first, you have to be last of all and the servant of all. Then He takes a child and says "whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me."
Women and children are smaller, weaker, and—biologically speaking—the natural servants. Who "receives one child...in [Christ's] name," if not women first and foremost? The natural or biological position of women in society places them at the bottom, in a position of service to both children and men. In this Gospel Jesus is saying this is the first position. The servant is the first. The greatest. That is because Christianity is about dying for another and giving your life for another.
Women are biologically hardwired to do this. As such, they have a leg up when it comes to religion. They can of course decide not to serve, but for most women having a child instantly gives them the motivation to die for another person. They will willingly give up their lives and their interests without thought for the sake of their child. Men, on the other hand, are given more of a choice. Their biology does not do most of the work for them. They can either decide to serve the weaker and love the smaller as Christ loves and dies for His Church, or not. This is why men propose marriage. This is why men give their name (or not!) to their offspring. This is why men need religion more than women do. I think it is also why priests are male, why there is so much focus and discussion surrounding what men will and will not respect, who men will and will not listen to. It's all about the men because the focus of religion is men, because they are the more difficult to save of the two. Some Reformed theology and Christian Nationalism has this understanding of men and women upside down, as if women were more in need of religion, as if women were the object of all these laws and prescriptions and biblical proclamations. But that clearly isn't the case. Women are made in the image of God just like men, and of course they need salvation and a Redeemer. But men might need religion more, since their biology doesn't wed and accustom them to self-sacrifice in quite the same way. It is much more difficult for the obviously stronger, bigger animal to lay down his life and sacrifice himself for the weak, as Christianity asks us to do.
Bingo. This is what these guys simply do *not* get. They’re so concerned about “ruling” etc etc that it doesn’t seem to me they stop and realize that Jesus said those of us who are willing to be servants are *the greatest* among us.
Great post! So much here, all of which has been on my mind for quite some time. Here are my immediate thoughts:
1) "During his First Coming, Christ exemplified archetypically feminine traits like compassion and self-sacrifice. When He comes again, He promises to embody the masculine traits of strength and power. As we dwell between His two arrivals, Christians must acknowledge Christ’s divinity in both."
Much to think about here. The Church has titled these two epochs as Christ's humiliation and Christ's exaltation. What is it about these traits (humility, compassion / exaltation, power) that makes them feminine/masculine? All Christians of all time, OT & NT, male & female, are called to be humble, for 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble'... How "feminine" is it for a man to be humble? Is it masculine for a woman to be strong? Strong in what way? Perhaps God has made us to have both feminine and masculine traits, while at the same time not compromising our male and femaleness? Something not mentioned but vital to the discussion is 'authority.' Much to think about....
2) "But in today's society, the embrace of Christ’s self-sacrificial 'feminine' traits has led to discomfort with His prophesied return in power. Our hyperfeminist culture has accepted compassion, but only by suppressing strength."
Very true. People are often shocked by Jesus' words of coming judgment and bloodshed. It would seem God 'prophesied' through Homer's Odysseus. He came to His own and was mistreated, what will happen at the end? A slaughter in the hall: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence" (Luke 19:27). It's a rough parallel, but it seems Jesus played on Homer, or rather Homer played on Jesus (Homer was a rhyme, a poem, but Christ is the Poet).
2) Where is femininity to be found in a masculine God? God is masculine, Father, Son, and Spirit, not Mother, Daughter, and Spirit. But of course this does not mean women do not have the image of God. So where is she found in God? I have much work to do on this, but my short answer is the feminine is in God. I don't think it is in the Spirit alone, but in the Triune Godhead. I have much studying to do here.... One book recommended to me is Donald Bloesch's The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive God-Language (https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Trinity-Debate-Inclusive-God-Language/dp/1579106927) Perhaps you would be interested in it too?
3) Suave and New Christendom: Oh boy. All I want to say here is this: I tell people to flee from this man and all his associates (Conn, Burkholder, Wolfe, Webbon). This is not patriarchy, it is hyper-patriarchy. I know they will say the opposite, but it is NOT patriarchy. These are small men.
And unfortunately they are racists. No way around it. The terrible insidious underbelly of New Christendom and Christian Nationalism is White Supremacy. Flee from these men!
4) Patriarchy and Nuns: the New Christendom Press folks have recently published a book on patriarchy. I have not read it, and given what I said above I would not recommend it. However, the book I do recommend is Steve Ozment's When Fathers Ruled (https://www.amazon.com/When-Fathers-Ruled-Reformation-Cultural/dp/0674951212). What a book! The opening chapter delves into the state of the Roman Catholic Church before the reformation. The terrible wickedness of the supposedly 'celibate' priesthood. You must read this... In fact, if you are short on a book fund, Jaala and I would be happy to send you a copy :)
I leave you with this quote from John Calvin's commentary on Matthew 19:10. This is what true biblical patriarchy looks like:
// 'His disciples say to him.' As if it were a hard condition for husbands to be so bound to their wives, that, so long as they remain chaste, they are compelled to endure every thing rather than leave them, the disciples, roused by this answer of Christ, reply, that it is better to want wives than to submit to a knot of this kind. But why do they not, on the other hand, consider how hard is the bondage of wives, but because, devoted to themselves and their own convenience, they are driven by the feeling of the flesh to disregard others, and to think only of what is advantageous for themselves? Meanwhile, it is a display of base ingratitude that, from the dread or dislike of a single inconvenience, they reject a wonderful gift of God. It is better, according to them, to avoid marriage than to bind one’s self by the bond of living always together. But if God has ordained marriage for the general advantage of mankind, though it may be attended by some things that are disagreeable, it is not on that account to be despised. Let us therefore learn not to be delicate and saucy, but to use with reverence the gifts of God, even if there be something in them that does not please us. Above all, let us guard against this wickedness in reference to holy marriage; for, in consequence of its being attended by many annoyances, Satan has always endeavored to make it an object of hatred and detestation, in order to withdraw men from it. And Jerome has given too manifest a proof of a malicious and wicked disposition, in not only loading with calumnies that sacred and divinely appointed condition of life, but in collecting as many terms of reproach as he could from profane authors, in order to take away its respectability. But let us recollect that whatever annoyances belong to marriage are accidental, for they arise out of the depravity of man. Let us remember that, since our nature was corrupted, marriage began to be a medicine, and therefore we need not wonder if it have a bitter taste mixed with its sweetness. But we must see how our Lord confutes this folly. //
5) I just checked out Tom Holland's Dominion from the library. Looking forward to reading it (or parts of it before it is due!)
Hi Matt, thanks for commenting! It's such an important topic, I think, especially given American politics these days. But also, it's just incredibly relevant to us all as men and women.
(1) I think you'll find Dominion helpful if you'd like to see where I'm coming from. Holland points out that before Christ there was no concept of universal human equality. Anyone, male or female, who wasn't a male Roman citizen was literally called a "toilet" for sexual use. Although Christ widened the definition of the word "virtus" to refer to things like charity and humility, it originally referred almost solely to winning glory, especially on the battlefield, and it comes from the Latin "vir" (man). Because power was so connected to male physical prowess and conquest, I think womanhood really was, to some extent, defined by suffering and submission. But I wonder if by coming in meekness as a man, Christ supernaturally transformed the meaning of masculinity, at least as it had been warped by the Fall.
(Of course, all speculation. Tom Holland's Dominion is so-named because Holland contends that Christ's revolution of the traditional male glory-seeking ethos was so impactful that even now, everybody in the West is functionally Christian, i.e. Christ has dominion. Holland's not a Christian himself. While that makes his view of Christianity a little shallow at times, it lends credibility to his objectivity as a historian.)
As far as ancient archetypes go—I like to think of what men and women traditionally risked their lives doing. Men risked their lives to destroy life on the battlefield. Women risked their lives to bring new life into the world. Together, these sacrifices made civilization possible. This isn't so true anymore, given modern tech (Mary Harrington says the Industrial Revolution is at the root of our gender/sex chaos today), but I think it says something about the masculine versus the feminine as transcendentals.
(3) I'm glad to hear from someone who knows more about Suave. Do you think their morality is so warped that all their podcasts would be totally warped too? This is always tricky for me to discern. They're not Alex Jones-style crazy conspiracy theorists. I couldn't imagine getting anything valuable from him. With these guys, I can imagine being edified. Especially in the case of Haunted Cosmos. I don't really seeing anyone else doing anything similar. Let me know what you think.
(4) I found the book in an online library! I'll give it a look. This is a great warning from Calvin: "Satan has always endeavored to make marriage an object of hatred and detestation, in order to withdraw men from it."
1) Thank you for the rundown on Holland's Dominion. I knew he was an unbeliever, but now I know why his book is popular in some circles (especially among postmilliennialists). This is the hot topic of today: the nature of Christ's mediatorial reign and it's consequences for history. New Christendom/Christian Nationalists functionally believe that if public institutions are not "Christian" then Christ's kingship is failing... This is total nonsense.
2) This topic is deep and broad. One immediate thought: God's creation mandates have not ceased (Gen 1-2: work, procreation, sabbath). They are universal and are only changed in the new heavens and new earth (ceasing of marriage - Matt 22:30).
3) As for Sauve and New Christendom: I found Haunted Cosmos interesting for a time. I listened up through their Skinwalker Ranch episodes. But I realized that most of their podcast was speculation and story telling. I do not doubt the reality of spiritual forces (Scripture makes this very clear), but it seems to me most of these bizarre occurrences covered on their show are demonic red-herrings. Literal demons/spiritual forces doing tricks to distract everyone from what actually matters: the Gospel, fighting your sins, things that are actually profitable. St Paul's rebuke of a Python demon in the fortune-telling slave-girl (Acts 16:16) comes to mind (a lot more I can say about that - look at the original Greek).
I agree with you, they are not at the Alex Jones level...yet. I appreciate your stance on not silencing someone you disagree with. But sometimes we are to avoid certain men (2 Tim 3 "Avoid such men as these.") And given their terrible track record everywhere else I stand by what I said: flee from these men.
Thank you for your continued interaction. It is very encouraging. Your writing is very helpful to me.
This turned out great! I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on this topic, and what I’m starting to think is that it’s not that “women” or “men” have some unique viewpoint that the other one somehow can’t understand, but that we are all children of God, and so therefore we don’t need to fear anyone’s voice. “The truth will out.” I see an underlying fearful spirit in a lot of Protestantism: wanting to have the “right” interpretation of Scripture, which leads to the attempt to silence or belittle opposing viewpoints. To me this is a great argument for tradition: to set ourselves free from this fear and pressure of needing to be right all the time.
This is an astute observation of Protestantism Catie. I would also add that the utter neglect and indeed disregard showed towards Mary, Theotokos, Mother of God, makes it very difficult for Protestants to develop a biblical understanding of womanhood. Reading Catholic writers like Abigail Favale and Erika Bachiochi absolutely transformed my understanding of biblical teaching regarding womanhood, and enabled me to understand that the choice is not between rigid complementarity and radical egalitarianism. As another commenter mentioned, looking at the early female Saints would provide a very different perspective, sadly Protestants are usually almost totally ignorant of all the early Saints, with the possible exception of Augustine, our church history usually skips straight from the apostles to the reformation.
I think a major issue all of us struggle with is that God said the husband is head of the wife. So darn, that must mean me (the husband) is supposed to lead, but we're also supposed to stay married, so I can't be too mean or strident about this. I know from 27 years of marriage that we often disagree. But she's a Christian too, and we read the same Bible, so why would we disagree? I can only figure God knew the husband would often have to overrule his wife, since He made us both. I must confess, I'm still a bit confused about this. I'm saved by grace anyway, so in a sense doing it perfectly doesn't matter. I do know for certain that our culture is very little help in understanding this: like trying to discuss a delicate subject with a 7-year-old always interrupting. The problem is that we who are trying to do this right will get absolutely no help from our culture, even the Christians. Only the Holy Spirit can really help.
"When men say staying home to raise immortal souls is the greatest calling on earth—and the next moment insist women must not vote—I see the same old line at play." - yes. The phrase I often heard from well-meaning Christians during the first few years of being at home with my kids was "the most important job in the world," and it so rubbed me the wrong way. I wrote a whole post about it on my old blog and maybe I'll reshare it here. Condescending at best and, as you said, manipulative at worst.
I'm not very knowledgeable about the Reformed world that podcast comes out of. Do they actually think the vote should be rescinded from women? I did listen to some of the podcast as I'm curious about what these people are saying with regard to women. I was out when they said of feminism, “I would actually go back to Mary Wollstonecraft. It is absolute garbage, from the beginning all the way through. It was in open and hostile warfare against Christian doctrine.” Lol k. Looks like someone needs to read Erika Bachiochi. Also, that one guy's name I couldn't help but read as "suave" haha.
I don’t remember whether they said it specifically in this podcast, but I’m 99% sure that’s what they believe! Even less extreme Christian nationalists like Doug Wilson believe that.
My wife and I discuss Proverbs 31 quite a bit on this, where faithful womanhood poses questions for us both. She straddles both the domestic and the public responsibility in tandem with her husband. I’d have to hold off on real exegesis because I’m not prepared to deliver it. All that to say, Proverbs 31 is instructive.
Right. This is something my husband pointed out as abhorrent in the separation of spheres. He said it was basically "Wife, take care of all the day-to-day so I'm free to do whatever I want," whereas it should be "Wife, I need your companionship and help with everything we're building as a family."
That's exactly it: a partnership of both, bent toward God's vision of the family (not necessarily the husband's vision of the family, nor that of his wife). Where questions of gender come up, it seems like biblical answers are not simple enough to please either male or female control.
Yikes, the way Brian Sauvé approaches his partnership with his wife reminds me of the post fall curse— your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.
I find that when our desire to control others trumps our ability to listen, we are not in alignment with Gods heart. It is the greatest pull on people to try and make others in our image and likeness. But only God can do that and He chooses to listen to us. I love the beauty and mystery of that.
Thanks for sharing and creating a space for this! It’s so important and I love how you balance the tensions.
Great minds think alike: I just wrote a piece about how the Right is so anti-feminist that they have a tendency to be anti-woman. This has led so many of us to become politically homeless. Here is my article if you’re interested:
I have long pondered Paul's teaching from Corinthians 14 (women should be silent in church meetings) and came to two ideas that help me understand it as in step with the gospel:
1) The letter was sent at a time when women were not allowed to worship in the temple or learn in religious schools, and may or may not have been counted as part of the congregational quorum of the synagogue. Without access to education or spiritual teaching, they would likely have been functionally illiterate and culturally quite superstitious because they had little access to training in logic or education by sound discourse. There might even be a grain of truth in the idea that women were more prone to deception at that time -- think about scam calls today -- who is most likely to be deceived by an AI-powered spam call from a hacker pretending to be you? Probably your grandma or another elderly person with little information about how this happens. In this context, Paul is actually encouraging women to be included into the body of the church by allowing them to listen to teaching in meetings alongside men, and engage with the preached material through discussion with their husbands and family members, thus bringing the daily reality of Christian practice into the home.
2) It is my understanding that the admonition to be silent and submissive comes specifically as a call to service with an understanding of men's hearts, not out of simple oppression or dismissal of women. That is, Paul is urging women to patience in a culture where men were crippled with pride at not being female. Part of the shock of Jesus' discussion with the Samaritan woman is that he addresses her at all -- men from that time period and culture did not interact with women outside of their families and did not view them as equals. We can still see vestiges of this cultural tradition in some places in the world. However, even now, in our own culture, it is easy to find an example of a man who can accept teaching, admonition and even criticism from another man, but who would utterly dismiss it if the messenger were a woman. In my observation, men can only receive correction from those they respect, and they can love women and even love them decently well without fully respecting them. This doesn't say anything in particular about the value of women, but shows primarily the hardness of heart that men struggle against in becoming teachable and accepting of correction. Many, many men cannot hear truth spoken by a woman, and even now there are men reading this sentence and feeling the temptation to disregard it. Checking your heart posture to find out if you are contemptuous or proud is valuable regardless of sex or gender, even as is planting seeds of patience and service that will fruit into mutual trust, amity in Christ, and unity in the church.
One thing I'd like to point out as well is that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul spends a long time talking about women who prophesy and pray in public. An accurate interpretation of 14 would have to take that into account because clearly if women are prophesying, they're not being silent in church all the time. It's altogether rather confusing. (Especially since that whole section is also about speaking in tongues, which I've never seen anyone do!)
Love may be a many-splendored thing but in reality it is also (like everything) a hierarchical thing. At its apex is the love whereby the other person’s wellbeing is fundamental to your own and something that you take deep personal responsibility for – like your spouse and your children. (And in times of war perhaps, in the heat of battle, also your comrades in arms.) Then there’s family that you care about but whose fate is largely independent of your own. And close friends; people you have mutually-selected from all the other passing ships. Then there are those individuals who gladden your heart and fill you with admiration even though you may never have known them personally. And then there is Love in the Abstract: Love of complete strangers. Western lefty liberals love almost everyone – all 8 billion of them. With exceptions of course. Exceptions might be white people or males or both....https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/love-of-the-people
Right. And the highest kind of love is the love that reaches the fewest individuals. From Dostoyevsky: “The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together."
Y'all are religious, so I won't stay long as I am unlikely to have much to add.
But I think it's worth pointing out that feminists are effectively trying to convince men to be 'pick mes'--'not like the other men' in terms of being nicer, better allies to women, etc. Ironically listening and becoming more feminine is likely to make them less attractive, and therefore less likely to be picked.
I find that, usually, if the progressives don't think I'm progressive enough and the conservatives don't think I'm conservative enough, I'm probably right where I should be -- which is where I think this article is, too ;D
My first instinct was to shudder and cancel Haunted Cosmos, which would break my heart, but that's such a Millenial/Gen Z cancel culture response of me.
Did you know that the word for "virtuous" in Proverbs 31 is originally the same Hebrew word used to describe King David as "valiant"? It's not some mousy, hidden-away idea of moral purity (not that I'm against moral purity), but rather, steadfast, unflinching fortitude. I wonder what some people would think of that.
As someone who was encouraged to relegate myself SOLELY to childcare and cooking roles in the Church (not just the church building but the Body of Christ, at large), I am only too familiar with the women-in-civil-discourse-hating mindset you were describing. I've seen how it causes women to despise, and sometimes eventually attempt to forsake, their gender. And I don't see Christ discouraging women to refrain from participating in civil discourse, either. Didn't the Samaritan woman at the well become His first, or one of His first, missionaries? Didn't He commend the Canaanite woman for challenging--CHALLENGING!!!!!--Him in Matthew 15?
I'm 100% preaching to the choir here, but I believe the hyper-conservative view of masculinity and femininity is every bit as political as the concept of gender being a social construct. It's just better disguised because it's easier to distort the Bible verses that way. And if that's what women are being told, doesn't it make sense that they no longer want to be women?
Yeeees. Also I first heard that idea “too progressive for conservatives and too conservative for progressives” from the And Campaign and I love it. I agree that when you find yourself there you’re probably on the right track! (I find myself there a lot so that’s what I’m hoping anyway)
Politically homeless folks rise up!
👏🏼🙌🏼
The Gospel from last Sunday (Mk 9:30-37): Apostles arguing over which among them is the greatest. Jesus says well if you want to be first, you have to be last of all and the servant of all. Then He takes a child and says "whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me."
Women and children are smaller, weaker, and—biologically speaking—the natural servants. Who "receives one child...in [Christ's] name," if not women first and foremost? The natural or biological position of women in society places them at the bottom, in a position of service to both children and men. In this Gospel Jesus is saying this is the first position. The servant is the first. The greatest. That is because Christianity is about dying for another and giving your life for another.
Women are biologically hardwired to do this. As such, they have a leg up when it comes to religion. They can of course decide not to serve, but for most women having a child instantly gives them the motivation to die for another person. They will willingly give up their lives and their interests without thought for the sake of their child. Men, on the other hand, are given more of a choice. Their biology does not do most of the work for them. They can either decide to serve the weaker and love the smaller as Christ loves and dies for His Church, or not. This is why men propose marriage. This is why men give their name (or not!) to their offspring. This is why men need religion more than women do. I think it is also why priests are male, why there is so much focus and discussion surrounding what men will and will not respect, who men will and will not listen to. It's all about the men because the focus of religion is men, because they are the more difficult to save of the two. Some Reformed theology and Christian Nationalism has this understanding of men and women upside down, as if women were more in need of religion, as if women were the object of all these laws and prescriptions and biblical proclamations. But that clearly isn't the case. Women are made in the image of God just like men, and of course they need salvation and a Redeemer. But men might need religion more, since their biology doesn't wed and accustom them to self-sacrifice in quite the same way. It is much more difficult for the obviously stronger, bigger animal to lay down his life and sacrifice himself for the weak, as Christianity asks us to do.
Wow wow I had never thought of it this way.
Bingo. This is what these guys simply do *not* get. They’re so concerned about “ruling” etc etc that it doesn’t seem to me they stop and realize that Jesus said those of us who are willing to be servants are *the greatest* among us.
Fascinating.
Wonderfully put
Dear Amelia,
Great post! So much here, all of which has been on my mind for quite some time. Here are my immediate thoughts:
1) "During his First Coming, Christ exemplified archetypically feminine traits like compassion and self-sacrifice. When He comes again, He promises to embody the masculine traits of strength and power. As we dwell between His two arrivals, Christians must acknowledge Christ’s divinity in both."
Much to think about here. The Church has titled these two epochs as Christ's humiliation and Christ's exaltation. What is it about these traits (humility, compassion / exaltation, power) that makes them feminine/masculine? All Christians of all time, OT & NT, male & female, are called to be humble, for 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble'... How "feminine" is it for a man to be humble? Is it masculine for a woman to be strong? Strong in what way? Perhaps God has made us to have both feminine and masculine traits, while at the same time not compromising our male and femaleness? Something not mentioned but vital to the discussion is 'authority.' Much to think about....
2) "But in today's society, the embrace of Christ’s self-sacrificial 'feminine' traits has led to discomfort with His prophesied return in power. Our hyperfeminist culture has accepted compassion, but only by suppressing strength."
Very true. People are often shocked by Jesus' words of coming judgment and bloodshed. It would seem God 'prophesied' through Homer's Odysseus. He came to His own and was mistreated, what will happen at the end? A slaughter in the hall: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence" (Luke 19:27). It's a rough parallel, but it seems Jesus played on Homer, or rather Homer played on Jesus (Homer was a rhyme, a poem, but Christ is the Poet).
2) Where is femininity to be found in a masculine God? God is masculine, Father, Son, and Spirit, not Mother, Daughter, and Spirit. But of course this does not mean women do not have the image of God. So where is she found in God? I have much work to do on this, but my short answer is the feminine is in God. I don't think it is in the Spirit alone, but in the Triune Godhead. I have much studying to do here.... One book recommended to me is Donald Bloesch's The Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive God-Language (https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Trinity-Debate-Inclusive-God-Language/dp/1579106927) Perhaps you would be interested in it too?
3) Suave and New Christendom: Oh boy. All I want to say here is this: I tell people to flee from this man and all his associates (Conn, Burkholder, Wolfe, Webbon). This is not patriarchy, it is hyper-patriarchy. I know they will say the opposite, but it is NOT patriarchy. These are small men.
And unfortunately they are racists. No way around it. The terrible insidious underbelly of New Christendom and Christian Nationalism is White Supremacy. Flee from these men!
4) Patriarchy and Nuns: the New Christendom Press folks have recently published a book on patriarchy. I have not read it, and given what I said above I would not recommend it. However, the book I do recommend is Steve Ozment's When Fathers Ruled (https://www.amazon.com/When-Fathers-Ruled-Reformation-Cultural/dp/0674951212). What a book! The opening chapter delves into the state of the Roman Catholic Church before the reformation. The terrible wickedness of the supposedly 'celibate' priesthood. You must read this... In fact, if you are short on a book fund, Jaala and I would be happy to send you a copy :)
I leave you with this quote from John Calvin's commentary on Matthew 19:10. This is what true biblical patriarchy looks like:
// 'His disciples say to him.' As if it were a hard condition for husbands to be so bound to their wives, that, so long as they remain chaste, they are compelled to endure every thing rather than leave them, the disciples, roused by this answer of Christ, reply, that it is better to want wives than to submit to a knot of this kind. But why do they not, on the other hand, consider how hard is the bondage of wives, but because, devoted to themselves and their own convenience, they are driven by the feeling of the flesh to disregard others, and to think only of what is advantageous for themselves? Meanwhile, it is a display of base ingratitude that, from the dread or dislike of a single inconvenience, they reject a wonderful gift of God. It is better, according to them, to avoid marriage than to bind one’s self by the bond of living always together. But if God has ordained marriage for the general advantage of mankind, though it may be attended by some things that are disagreeable, it is not on that account to be despised. Let us therefore learn not to be delicate and saucy, but to use with reverence the gifts of God, even if there be something in them that does not please us. Above all, let us guard against this wickedness in reference to holy marriage; for, in consequence of its being attended by many annoyances, Satan has always endeavored to make it an object of hatred and detestation, in order to withdraw men from it. And Jerome has given too manifest a proof of a malicious and wicked disposition, in not only loading with calumnies that sacred and divinely appointed condition of life, but in collecting as many terms of reproach as he could from profane authors, in order to take away its respectability. But let us recollect that whatever annoyances belong to marriage are accidental, for they arise out of the depravity of man. Let us remember that, since our nature was corrupted, marriage began to be a medicine, and therefore we need not wonder if it have a bitter taste mixed with its sweetness. But we must see how our Lord confutes this folly. //
5) I just checked out Tom Holland's Dominion from the library. Looking forward to reading it (or parts of it before it is due!)
6) Great Donne quote!
Blessings,
Hi Matt, thanks for commenting! It's such an important topic, I think, especially given American politics these days. But also, it's just incredibly relevant to us all as men and women.
(1) I think you'll find Dominion helpful if you'd like to see where I'm coming from. Holland points out that before Christ there was no concept of universal human equality. Anyone, male or female, who wasn't a male Roman citizen was literally called a "toilet" for sexual use. Although Christ widened the definition of the word "virtus" to refer to things like charity and humility, it originally referred almost solely to winning glory, especially on the battlefield, and it comes from the Latin "vir" (man). Because power was so connected to male physical prowess and conquest, I think womanhood really was, to some extent, defined by suffering and submission. But I wonder if by coming in meekness as a man, Christ supernaturally transformed the meaning of masculinity, at least as it had been warped by the Fall.
(Of course, all speculation. Tom Holland's Dominion is so-named because Holland contends that Christ's revolution of the traditional male glory-seeking ethos was so impactful that even now, everybody in the West is functionally Christian, i.e. Christ has dominion. Holland's not a Christian himself. While that makes his view of Christianity a little shallow at times, it lends credibility to his objectivity as a historian.)
As far as ancient archetypes go—I like to think of what men and women traditionally risked their lives doing. Men risked their lives to destroy life on the battlefield. Women risked their lives to bring new life into the world. Together, these sacrifices made civilization possible. This isn't so true anymore, given modern tech (Mary Harrington says the Industrial Revolution is at the root of our gender/sex chaos today), but I think it says something about the masculine versus the feminine as transcendentals.
(3) I'm glad to hear from someone who knows more about Suave. Do you think their morality is so warped that all their podcasts would be totally warped too? This is always tricky for me to discern. They're not Alex Jones-style crazy conspiracy theorists. I couldn't imagine getting anything valuable from him. With these guys, I can imagine being edified. Especially in the case of Haunted Cosmos. I don't really seeing anyone else doing anything similar. Let me know what you think.
(4) I found the book in an online library! I'll give it a look. This is a great warning from Calvin: "Satan has always endeavored to make marriage an object of hatred and detestation, in order to withdraw men from it."
1) Thank you for the rundown on Holland's Dominion. I knew he was an unbeliever, but now I know why his book is popular in some circles (especially among postmilliennialists). This is the hot topic of today: the nature of Christ's mediatorial reign and it's consequences for history. New Christendom/Christian Nationalists functionally believe that if public institutions are not "Christian" then Christ's kingship is failing... This is total nonsense.
2) This topic is deep and broad. One immediate thought: God's creation mandates have not ceased (Gen 1-2: work, procreation, sabbath). They are universal and are only changed in the new heavens and new earth (ceasing of marriage - Matt 22:30).
3) As for Sauve and New Christendom: I found Haunted Cosmos interesting for a time. I listened up through their Skinwalker Ranch episodes. But I realized that most of their podcast was speculation and story telling. I do not doubt the reality of spiritual forces (Scripture makes this very clear), but it seems to me most of these bizarre occurrences covered on their show are demonic red-herrings. Literal demons/spiritual forces doing tricks to distract everyone from what actually matters: the Gospel, fighting your sins, things that are actually profitable. St Paul's rebuke of a Python demon in the fortune-telling slave-girl (Acts 16:16) comes to mind (a lot more I can say about that - look at the original Greek).
I agree with you, they are not at the Alex Jones level...yet. I appreciate your stance on not silencing someone you disagree with. But sometimes we are to avoid certain men (2 Tim 3 "Avoid such men as these.") And given their terrible track record everywhere else I stand by what I said: flee from these men.
Thank you for your continued interaction. It is very encouraging. Your writing is very helpful to me.
Sincerely,
This turned out great! I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on this topic, and what I’m starting to think is that it’s not that “women” or “men” have some unique viewpoint that the other one somehow can’t understand, but that we are all children of God, and so therefore we don’t need to fear anyone’s voice. “The truth will out.” I see an underlying fearful spirit in a lot of Protestantism: wanting to have the “right” interpretation of Scripture, which leads to the attempt to silence or belittle opposing viewpoints. To me this is a great argument for tradition: to set ourselves free from this fear and pressure of needing to be right all the time.
This is an astute observation of Protestantism Catie. I would also add that the utter neglect and indeed disregard showed towards Mary, Theotokos, Mother of God, makes it very difficult for Protestants to develop a biblical understanding of womanhood. Reading Catholic writers like Abigail Favale and Erika Bachiochi absolutely transformed my understanding of biblical teaching regarding womanhood, and enabled me to understand that the choice is not between rigid complementarity and radical egalitarianism. As another commenter mentioned, looking at the early female Saints would provide a very different perspective, sadly Protestants are usually almost totally ignorant of all the early Saints, with the possible exception of Augustine, our church history usually skips straight from the apostles to the reformation.
I’m so excited to read Favale and Bachiochi as soon as possible!!
You are in for such a treat. Both of them are doing wonderful work.
I think a major issue all of us struggle with is that God said the husband is head of the wife. So darn, that must mean me (the husband) is supposed to lead, but we're also supposed to stay married, so I can't be too mean or strident about this. I know from 27 years of marriage that we often disagree. But she's a Christian too, and we read the same Bible, so why would we disagree? I can only figure God knew the husband would often have to overrule his wife, since He made us both. I must confess, I'm still a bit confused about this. I'm saved by grace anyway, so in a sense doing it perfectly doesn't matter. I do know for certain that our culture is very little help in understanding this: like trying to discuss a delicate subject with a 7-year-old always interrupting. The problem is that we who are trying to do this right will get absolutely no help from our culture, even the Christians. Only the Holy Spirit can really help.
"When men say staying home to raise immortal souls is the greatest calling on earth—and the next moment insist women must not vote—I see the same old line at play." - yes. The phrase I often heard from well-meaning Christians during the first few years of being at home with my kids was "the most important job in the world," and it so rubbed me the wrong way. I wrote a whole post about it on my old blog and maybe I'll reshare it here. Condescending at best and, as you said, manipulative at worst.
I'm not very knowledgeable about the Reformed world that podcast comes out of. Do they actually think the vote should be rescinded from women? I did listen to some of the podcast as I'm curious about what these people are saying with regard to women. I was out when they said of feminism, “I would actually go back to Mary Wollstonecraft. It is absolute garbage, from the beginning all the way through. It was in open and hostile warfare against Christian doctrine.” Lol k. Looks like someone needs to read Erika Bachiochi. Also, that one guy's name I couldn't help but read as "suave" haha.
I don’t remember whether they said it specifically in this podcast, but I’m 99% sure that’s what they believe! Even less extreme Christian nationalists like Doug Wilson believe that.
My wife and I discuss Proverbs 31 quite a bit on this, where faithful womanhood poses questions for us both. She straddles both the domestic and the public responsibility in tandem with her husband. I’d have to hold off on real exegesis because I’m not prepared to deliver it. All that to say, Proverbs 31 is instructive.
Right. This is something my husband pointed out as abhorrent in the separation of spheres. He said it was basically "Wife, take care of all the day-to-day so I'm free to do whatever I want," whereas it should be "Wife, I need your companionship and help with everything we're building as a family."
That's exactly it: a partnership of both, bent toward God's vision of the family (not necessarily the husband's vision of the family, nor that of his wife). Where questions of gender come up, it seems like biblical answers are not simple enough to please either male or female control.
🎯🎯
Yikes, the way Brian Sauvé approaches his partnership with his wife reminds me of the post fall curse— your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.
I find that when our desire to control others trumps our ability to listen, we are not in alignment with Gods heart. It is the greatest pull on people to try and make others in our image and likeness. But only God can do that and He chooses to listen to us. I love the beauty and mystery of that.
Thanks for sharing and creating a space for this! It’s so important and I love how you balance the tensions.
Great minds think alike: I just wrote a piece about how the Right is so anti-feminist that they have a tendency to be anti-woman. This has led so many of us to become politically homeless. Here is my article if you’re interested:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thecredocatholic/p/the-right-has-a-woman-problem
Wow, truly. We're definitely on the same page.
I'm studying the Middle Ages with my kids at the moment.
St. Hildegard Von Bingen, Julian of Norwich, St. Claire of Assisi, and St. Catherine of Siena would all like a word with that podcasting fellow.
I have long pondered Paul's teaching from Corinthians 14 (women should be silent in church meetings) and came to two ideas that help me understand it as in step with the gospel:
1) The letter was sent at a time when women were not allowed to worship in the temple or learn in religious schools, and may or may not have been counted as part of the congregational quorum of the synagogue. Without access to education or spiritual teaching, they would likely have been functionally illiterate and culturally quite superstitious because they had little access to training in logic or education by sound discourse. There might even be a grain of truth in the idea that women were more prone to deception at that time -- think about scam calls today -- who is most likely to be deceived by an AI-powered spam call from a hacker pretending to be you? Probably your grandma or another elderly person with little information about how this happens. In this context, Paul is actually encouraging women to be included into the body of the church by allowing them to listen to teaching in meetings alongside men, and engage with the preached material through discussion with their husbands and family members, thus bringing the daily reality of Christian practice into the home.
2) It is my understanding that the admonition to be silent and submissive comes specifically as a call to service with an understanding of men's hearts, not out of simple oppression or dismissal of women. That is, Paul is urging women to patience in a culture where men were crippled with pride at not being female. Part of the shock of Jesus' discussion with the Samaritan woman is that he addresses her at all -- men from that time period and culture did not interact with women outside of their families and did not view them as equals. We can still see vestiges of this cultural tradition in some places in the world. However, even now, in our own culture, it is easy to find an example of a man who can accept teaching, admonition and even criticism from another man, but who would utterly dismiss it if the messenger were a woman. In my observation, men can only receive correction from those they respect, and they can love women and even love them decently well without fully respecting them. This doesn't say anything in particular about the value of women, but shows primarily the hardness of heart that men struggle against in becoming teachable and accepting of correction. Many, many men cannot hear truth spoken by a woman, and even now there are men reading this sentence and feeling the temptation to disregard it. Checking your heart posture to find out if you are contemptuous or proud is valuable regardless of sex or gender, even as is planting seeds of patience and service that will fruit into mutual trust, amity in Christ, and unity in the church.
One thing I'd like to point out as well is that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul spends a long time talking about women who prophesy and pray in public. An accurate interpretation of 14 would have to take that into account because clearly if women are prophesying, they're not being silent in church all the time. It's altogether rather confusing. (Especially since that whole section is also about speaking in tongues, which I've never seen anyone do!)
Observant and thought provoking article. I’m wary of any group or individual who is overly convinced of their own rightness.
Love may be a many-splendored thing but in reality it is also (like everything) a hierarchical thing. At its apex is the love whereby the other person’s wellbeing is fundamental to your own and something that you take deep personal responsibility for – like your spouse and your children. (And in times of war perhaps, in the heat of battle, also your comrades in arms.) Then there’s family that you care about but whose fate is largely independent of your own. And close friends; people you have mutually-selected from all the other passing ships. Then there are those individuals who gladden your heart and fill you with admiration even though you may never have known them personally. And then there is Love in the Abstract: Love of complete strangers. Western lefty liberals love almost everyone – all 8 billion of them. With exceptions of course. Exceptions might be white people or males or both....https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/love-of-the-people
Right. And the highest kind of love is the love that reaches the fewest individuals. From Dostoyevsky: “The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together."
Great post by the way.
Y'all are religious, so I won't stay long as I am unlikely to have much to add.
But I think it's worth pointing out that feminists are effectively trying to convince men to be 'pick mes'--'not like the other men' in terms of being nicer, better allies to women, etc. Ironically listening and becoming more feminine is likely to make them less attractive, and therefore less likely to be picked.