Sunday, August 27, 2023

Modern Church And Marital Submission

 I'd like to highlight this comment by Elspeth:

This is a good post. So often I have read where supposedly conservative people have insisted that this state of affairs (feminism)  is a natural result of technology. No. They are a result of progressive values. Technology and conservatism can coexist.

And...should someone point out as you have here, that there are cultures where traditional family values and sexual mores have managed to endure, they'll quickly point out that those are "oppressive regimes".

Anything that calls for self-control, libido restraint, and godly order is called "oppressive".

(emphasis mine) 

The comment stands on its own but I'd just like to add that too many  modern "conservative" churches will preach wifely submission and then turn around and state that it's "a gift" which should be "given freely" and if the husband tries to demand/enforce it in any way, it's oppressive/abusive. 

When you think about it logically, it doesn't make any sense. Either the husband has the authority over his wife and children or he doesn't. If he does have it, then he should have the right/means to enforce it, the way it used to be in the West before they rewrote the laws. Parental authority got curtailed, too, but it still exists legally and morally speaking. 

Just to demonstrate the absurdity of this line of thinking, imagine we'd have the same system in the army or really any work place with more than one employee. Your boss is supposed to be a "servant'-leader" and "win the hearts and minds" of his employees (or the officer of his soldiers) but it's up to them whether they follow his orders/instructions and he has no means to enforce his authority in any way, nor fire them, and is in fact, criticised and accused of abuse if he even tries.

Just how well would such an organisation function and how long would it even exist? Could an army unit perform its tasks properly? And yet, it's exactly what modern church leaders tell husbands to do and then scold them when things go wrong and say they'd do better if only they were "better leaders". Most of the Western churches openly pander to women, and the conservatives are sometimes worse than liberals in this respect since the liberals at least aren't hypocritical and openly state they believe in equality.

Conservatives and churchians, on the other hand, will often admit that women are "different" and that men are supposed to be leaders, but will decry any attempt to lead as oppression yet have no problem blaming the husband for his wife's sins. Your wife committed adultery? It's your fault, you should have been a better leader. She even murdered your children? Again, it's your fault, you should have led better. They deny women any accountability the way they do with a three year old child, but somehow insist that they be given full adult rights, political and otherwise, and Heaven forbid the husband try in any way to enforce the rules. 

Of course, you could say in their defence, that they are afraid to speak up due to the current political climate, since feminism is pretty much the dogma at this point, and yet many aren't afraid to attack abortion which is also sacred for liberals or even criticise alphabet stuff which is pretty much akin to blasphemy nowadays. So what's their problem?

Here are a couple Bible verses to consider. From the OT:


For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.”

And NT:

1Tim 3

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)


  1. I appreciate the honorable mention.

    Like your top post indicates, the reality is that most moderns have no idea what a traditional life looked like, nor would they be interested in one of they did. The amount of autonomy that would need to be relinquished would devastate them, and they would rebel in the same ways that the boomers they hate so much rebelled.

    What most of the "trads" are angling for is a type of "tradition" that bolsters their pet causes. For men, it;s this idea of a woman who is desperately dependent upon him so that she obeys and puts out under veiled coercion. For women, it's the comfort of being at home full time and a world where men return to lifting heavy things and giving up their seats for women.

    Very few of these folks have any interest in giving up the things they would need to let go of in order to gain the benefits they desire.

  2. You are welcome!

    Many of online conservatives are just right wing libertarians. To really return to tradition, we would have to rewrite the laws, which is entirely possible (look at abortion laws in the USA), but most of them would probably disagree because, as you point out, it would mean relinquishing the autonomy they possess.

    Just to give you one example, the law in some European countries (mine was one of them) used to prohibit married women from working. It was not up to the husband to decide, the government took the decision on his behalf. The law also made him the head of his household but on the other hand he had the duty to provide for his family and even his parents and his widowed sisters, in case they couldn't provide for themselves.

    As an elderly preacher once told us, "we/men used to die at work". When I see young men running around with babies and toddlers during working hours I doubt they will ever want to return to the old system, they'd rather obey their wives and have their work-life balance.