The Bible and female life path

Going back to Jack’s chart:

A few personal notes about this chart.

  • The Bible commands either Headship or Celibacy. There is no other. That’s what Biblical marriage is, and that’s where the line is drawn.
  • Complementarianism is the most deceptive for Christians because it is the closest to the Truth, but the lies in it produce the same fruit of the world (e.g. divorce, marital strife, etc.).
  • In practice, the male submission line is the same line as the female submission line. Complementarians ultimately end up with male submission as they make a husband slave to his wife’s feelings. Choreplay being one of the obvious ones, and of course the emphasis on servant-leadership.
  • I’d argue that feminism is pretty much everything under the umbrella of male submission, just the most obvious word. Egalitarian “Christians” come in two groups; the ones that don’t want to be grouped with the feminists and the ones that will admit it. They’re both one and the same, except the ones who don’t want to be grouped with the feminists are just deceiving themselves.
  • To be it’s really crazy in retrospect how chivarly and courtly love have been integrated into Christianity by most of western churches.

The more you move down the chart the further you get away from the Truth, and the more earthly consequences become more dire for both the man, the woman, and relationships and marriage. Good fruit is good fruit, and bad fruit is bad fruit.

It’ll be interesting to see how far the Church ends up deviating from this, and the consequences of that. The more progressive churches are losing members in droves and the conservative ones less but on a similar trend. Will be interesting to see at what point it stabilizes, perhaps like post-Christian Europe?

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Bible and female life path

  1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    That is an excellent post on where we stand. The question is, where to go from here. For men, we can’t bridge the whole gap. We have to be met halfway, so that we know that women care about making this work.

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Bible only recommends Headship or Celibacy.

    Perhaps like fornication or marriage? We all have known churchgoing people who tried to square the circle with all sorts of “well, they’re engaged, so…” rationalizations, but isn’t the text clear on this?

    I’d argue that feminism is pretty much everything under the umbrella of male submission, just the most obvious word. Egalitarian “Christians” come in two groups; the ones that don’t want to be grouped with the feminists and the ones that will admit it. They’re both one and the same, except the ones who don’t want to be grouped with the feminists are just deceiving themselves.

    The ones who won’t admit it are generally conservative feminists; they have adopted the 1970’s – 80’s feminism and can get pretty upset when they are called “feminist”. One response is to insist that they oppose abortion and don’t agree with homogany – pointing to more extreme feminist positions enables them to say “I’m not like that so I’m not a feminist”.

    But as we saw over the years at Dalrock’s in many examples, we exist in a sea of feminism. We soak in it. IMO the pervasiveness of feminism in the wider culture is a major factor in the constant little bits of leakage into just about every church. Personally I gave up on TV news some years ago, but recent events led me to view regional “news” with a fast forward. I’d forgotten how obvious the propaganda is. How many wives of pastors and other church leaders are soaking in their Fakebook feed day after day, then feeding that to their husbands, just to pick one example?

    Since the default position for a man in this culture is “slave to his wife’s feelings”, it’s an act of rebellion to prefer some other, more nonemotional, standard. Perhaps that’s why some older churchgoing men get so angry over this, their actual faith is in women’s fee-fees; so questioning the holy fee-fees is questioning their “faith”?

  3. Novaseeker says:

    To be it’s really crazy in retrospect how chivarly and courtly love have been integrated into Christianity by most of western churches.

    Well, I think it has to do with the reality that Christianity became an intrinsic part of “Western culture”, and that is very much a two-way street, in that when that kind of identification happens, the influences can, and do, run in either direction. That is, Christianity can influence the culture – and this certainly happened over the course of the period during which Christianity was the “establishment culture” in the West – but Christianity can also become influenced by the culture, specifically the elements of it that are extrinsic to Christianity in their origin. The result is that for many Christians, the line between culture and Christianity became quite blurred – elements of the culture that were not Christian in origin were adopted by Christians because they were also a part of the culture, and the culture overall was considered a “Christian culture” (at the time), so it was “all good”. But the elements were not, in all cases, Christian, even though they were accepted by, and adopted by, Christians, including for use in Christian churches and in the expressions of the Christian faith in its religious, and not merely its cultural, aspects.

    I’ve talked here before about how one element of that was the way that “middle class values” became associated with “Christian values”, and were practiced by Christians as if they were one and the same for a long time. But then middle class values changed – they became much more feminist, much less consistent with Christianity’s values, especially when it comes to raising daughters and their life script – and Christians went on following the culture’s middle class values, because, for them, to be middle class was to be Christian and vice versa. The idea that these were in conflict, or even could be, did not even compute for most Christians, because “middle class American” and “Christian” were practically synonymous, such that the “content” of being “Christian” was largely the same as the “content” of being “American middle class”, and when the latter changed due to feminism, people simply adjusted their perception of what it meant to be a “Christian” around the new definition of what it meant to be “American middle class”, more or less without missing a beat. Almost no churches bucked this apart from the most traditionalist outliers. The underlying reason is that for most people the culture of what was American, what was middle class, and what was Christian had long since merged in their minds, their mindsets, and their identity, such that when one aspect changed, it simply was applied to the other aspects and the new, changed, yet still merged, identity continued along, albeit in a more feminist version.

    Concepts like chivalry and courtly love were integrated into the Western Christian identity a long time ago, of course, long before contemporary feminism. They came in through the same process – identification of Christianity and the ambient Western culture, and therefore a blurring of both of the elements together in terms of the mind, mindset and identity of the average Christian. Even though the Church itself never explicitly endorsed them as doctrine, because the average Christian had the ideas in their mind, their mindset, and their identity, and saw that as being merged with their “Christian” identity as well, they came into the church “through the back door” by means of a de facto cultural merger on the personal level.

    It can be sometimes hard to see this today, when so much of the church’s self-styled “traditional” branches are loudly proclaiming that they are aloof from, and at odds with, this or that element of contemporary culture, be it abortion, transgender issues, gay marriage and the like. And its true that there is that intentional cultural distancing going on. But the fact that this is going on now also serves to obscure the reality that the non-Christian elements of the ambient culture of prior eras still lurks inside the “conservative Christianity” that these “counter-cultural”, traditional, churches are trying to conserve – in other words, what they are conserving is, in many ways, not actually Christian, but merely the non-Christian elements of the prior version of the broader Western culture that had entered the churches through the process of cultural merger and identification in the minds of the individual members of the churches (including clergy as well), such that we really are dealing with churches that are defending some elements of non-Christian culture that are present in their churches but that they do not even admit are not Christian, over and against “new” elements of non-Christian culture that they are (rightfully) resisting, rather than actually resisting *all* elements of non-Christian culture that are present in their churches.

    Seen in this way, the difference between the “progressive” and “conservative” elements of the churches becomes in fact much smaller, and is really reduced down to what non-Christian elements are they willing to accept into the churches, given that both of them have done so, just in different ways, and with different degrees of self-awareness.

  4. feeriker says:

    I’ve talked here before about how one element of that was the way that “middle class values” became associated with “Christian values”, and were practiced by Christians as if they were one and the same for a long time. But then middle class values changed – they became much more feminist, much less consistent with Christianity’s values, especially when it comes to raising daughters and their life script – and Christians went on following the culture’s middle class values, because, for them, to be middle class was to be Christian and vice versa. The idea that these were in conflict, or even could be, did not even compute for most Christians, because “middle class American” and “Christian” were practically synonymous, such that the “content” of being “Christian” was largely the same as the “content” of being “American middle class”

    This is a great illustration of the horrendous lack of discernment that is characteristic of most American Christians (i.e., churchians) today.

  5. @ fuzzie

    That is an excellent post on where we stand. The question is, where to go from here. For men, we can’t bridge the whole gap. We have to be met halfway, so that we know that women care about making this work.

    I think it all goes back to the parable of the talents. We’re not called to change the world ourselves. We’re required to be diligent and faithful with what we’ve been given, and most of the time that’s mostly influencing those around us.

    Some men and women will respond. Most probably won’t. But we always knew that wide is the road that leads to destruction, and narrow is the gate of life.

  6. @ AR

    Since the default position for a man in this culture is “slave to his wife’s feelings”, it’s an act of rebellion to prefer some other, more nonemotional, standard. Perhaps that’s why some older churchgoing men get so angry over this, their actual faith is in women’s fee-fees; so questioning the holy fee-fees is questioning their “faith”?

    Any time you question the orthodox view (whether it is true or not) then you get called a heretic or worse. Jesus and the disciples are an example themselves.

    I think that is one good indicator though. Jesus said that His followers would be hated by the world. If you’re not being hated by the world for your views there’s probably something wrong.

    This doesn’t take away from the fact that we should be living as good examples so there is nothing they can say about our behavior, but they will always hate us for our worldview that God is the Creator and He made His creation is a certain way that does not jive with a humanized and hedonistic world view.

  7. @ Nova

    I’ve talked here before about how one element of that was the way that “middle class values” became associated with “Christian values”, and were practiced by Christians as if they were one and the same for a long time. But then middle class values changed – they became much more feminist, much less consistent with Christianity’s values, especially when it comes to raising daughters and their life script – and Christians went on following the culture’s middle class values, because, for them, to be middle class was to be Christian and vice versa. The idea that these were in conflict, or even could be, did not even compute for most Christians, because “middle class American” and “Christian” were practically synonymous, such that the “content” of being “Christian” was largely the same as the “content” of being “American middle class”, and when the latter changed due to feminism, people simply adjusted their perception of what it meant to be a “Christian” around the new definition of what it meant to be “American middle class”, more or less without missing a beat. Almost no churches bucked this apart from the most traditionalist outliers. The underlying reason is that for most people the culture of what was American, what was middle class, and what was Christian had long since merged in their minds, their mindsets, and their identity, such that when one aspect changed, it simply was applied to the other aspects and the new, changed, yet still merged, identity continued along, albeit in a more feminist version.

    Good point, although I might argue that it’s closer to “American values” have become “Christian values.” Some (or perhaps many?) are determined by the middle class, but most are rooted in rebellion and defiance against authority in the first place which is why everything is going to crumble eventually. The American dream — material success and wealth — in particular is very at odds with Christ’s mission of evangelizing and making disciples. Selfish vs selfless.

    All of the political jimmying of both liberal and conservative “Christians” is case in point really. Jesus did not strive for political change but was here to change hearts. It’s interesting how people use Jesus’ name to support their own agendas.

    It can be sometimes hard to see this today, when so much of the church’s self-styled “traditional” branches are loudly proclaiming that they are aloof from, and at odds with, this or that element of contemporary culture, be it abortion, transgender issues, gay marriage and the like. And its true that there is that intentional cultural distancing going on. But the fact that this is going on now also serves to obscure the reality that the non-Christian elements of the ambient culture of prior eras still lurks inside the “conservative Christianity” that these “counter-cultural”, traditional, churches are trying to conserve – in other words, what they are conserving is, in many ways, not actually Christian, but merely the non-Christian elements of the prior version of the broader Western culture that had entered the churches through the process of cultural merger and identification in the minds of the individual members of the churches (including clergy as well), such that we really are dealing with churches that are defending some elements of non-Christian culture that are present in their churches but that they do not even admit are not Christian, over and against “new” elements of non-Christian culture that they are (rightfully) resisting, rather than actually resisting *all* elements of non-Christian culture that are present in their churches.

    Yes, much like the Pharisees it’s the planks they don’t see in their own eye. Most of our criticism should be focused on the Church who is going off the rails, not outside the Church to those who need the gospel.

    Seen in this way, the difference between the “progressive” and “conservative” elements of the churches becomes in fact much smaller, and is really reduced down to what non-Christian elements are they willing to accept into the churches, given that both of them have done so, just in different ways, and with different degrees of self-awareness.

    A good way to put it.

  8. Joe2 says:

    The Bible only recommends Headship or Celibacy. That’s what Biblical marriage is, and that’s where the line is drawn.

    I may be wrong, but I always thought the word “recommend” has the meaning to suggest, endorse or encourage as an appropriate choice.or to advise someone that they should do something. It does not mean to require a certain choice, action, etc.

    If the Bible “only recommends Headship” it seems that other Structures of Authority would be acceptable although not ideal.

  9. @ Joe2

    I may be wrong, but I always thought the word “recommend” has the meaning to suggest, endorse or encourage as an appropriate choice.or to advise someone that they should do something. It does not mean to require a certain choice, action, etc.

    Thanks for the heads up. I’ll go back and edit that.

  10. Jack says:

    It is difficult to make a graph like this, because it represents archetypes. Real relationships having different nuances of dynamics could fall anywhere on the spectrum. I appreciate the review. If I get some better ideas then I can make a better graph.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    In a way this ties in with the whole “unconditional forgiveness” aspect of the modern churches that often leads to babymommas leeching off of a church, while young single men are encouraged to wife her “beautiful, beautiful” self up. Girls are taught that no matter what they have done or are doing, at most they only have to produce some tears & that’s it, all good! It’s the standard feminist life track with a plastic Jesus fish taped on, sure, but it’s really common.

  12. Pingback: Summary of evaluating relationship or marital status and plans of action | Christianity and masculinity

  13. Pingback: More on Relational Archetypes | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: The Amalgamation of Western Culture | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: The God ordained way to gain a husband’s trust and enable him to lead | Christianity and masculinity

  16. Pingback: 2020 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: The friend zone is the same as a feminism in the female life path | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s