Archive for November, 2007

Thought provoking

Doug Wilson dishes on gender roles…

When it comes to 1 Cor. 11:3, where we learn that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman, Wright goes with the popular (and to my mind, evasive) reading that head here means source, like the head of a river. But apart from the special pleading aspect of this, it appears to me to be special pleading that actually backfires on the egalitarian. If headship here means covenantal or federal headship, as I would want to argue, then the headship of the man incorporates and represents the woman, allowing for and requiring a perichoretic equality between the sexes. In a Trinitarian framework, submission does not mean inferiority. But this language of headship as source, when it comes to the sexes, is thin ice indeed. Taken too woodenly, this idea would lead us toward an Arian Christology, and a Muslim view of women. In other words, egalitarians need to recognize that their reading of 1 Cor. 11:3 is more conducive to the mentality of raw patriarchy than is the covenantal and representative reading. Submission to a source is more problematic than submission to a covenant representative.

 Click here for the rest of the article


One of the most bandied about charges against modern day patriarchs is that they care nothing for  evangelism. I’ve always been a bit fascinated by this accusation. It’s a bit like accusing the mechanic at a tire store of telling folks they don’t need water in their radiators. After all they only change tires; its obvious they don’t care about the rest of the car and in fact we strongly suspect them of telling people to drain their radiators because they exclude them so much.

A pastor who preaches on family roles is, well, teaching on family roles. it doesn’t mean he is teaching against street preaching or missionaries. See, wasn’t that easy!

Nancy Wilson has some interesting things to say concerning women in the ministry. Here’s a great quote:

The first question to ask and answer is, “Who is this woman’s husband?” Next we must ask many subsidiary questions. Is she fulfilling her ministry to him? Is he her priority? Is she helping him? Is her house in order? Is he leading her in this ministry? Is her identity as a Christian woman centered around her relationship to her husband?

If the answer to any of these is “no,” then her ministry is likely independent of her husband, and it is much like a separate career; but because it is “Christian,” it is somehow seen as a valid ministry. In contrast, because Scripture clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the wife, a Christian woman in ministry should clearly be seen as under her husband’s visible headship. In other words, her ministry should be visibly connected to him.

You can read the rest of Nancy Wilson’s article here .


Her husband Doug has an old fence-like article here.



But the masculinist egalitarian tends to assume that the broader relationship between men and women is foremost. Because of this assumption of the primacy of men generally over women generally, he assumes that every male should be prepared to lead any home, and that every female should be prepared to step into any marriage ready to follow. He also necessarily assumes that the resultant families are roughly equal in ability, status, etc .

In the hierarchical and biblical view, the relationship of women to men is first familial , and then as a consequence, a larger (and very complex) cultural and societal relationship between the sexes emerges. This means that wives are to submit to, and provide help to, their own husbands (and no one else). As a result of this submission in countless families, a larger patriarchal society will emerge. However, this patriarchal society will necessarily contain a number of women who are far more intelligent, educated, and “stronger” than numerous men. No society is truly patriarchal unless it contains a significant number of noble women, “stronger” in many ways than a number of the men.


Wilson does an admirable job in that article explaining the meaning of “weaker vessel” and a well defined view of submission.  I have always enjoyed Wilson’s writings on the family.


A friend of mine sent me this link by a guy named Taylor West who links to a session at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that apparently asks “Is patriarchy a gospel issue?” Taylor says yes (I can’t wait to listen).


Dr. Russell Moore says yes here (warning, this is an hour long message). I couldn’t agree more.

This is the best message I’ve ever heard on how patriarchy is a gospel issue and when it is rejected, the gospel is rejected. As a Presbyterian, I take issue with his take on infant baptism (Moore is a Baptist), but since we both read the text in the exact same way on the bigger issue of what headship is and how it relates to what Christ done on the cross, I love this man. Dr. Moore is so astute and unashamed on this issue that I am beginning to think he may be the best man in the States today speaking to the issue. By the way, John Piper, as wonderful as he is on the issue, pales in comparison to Moore on this.


In response to the ladies across the way who ask the other day why us patriarchs don’t worry about training our boys to be leader types I present for your consideration.




You can register here


Lastly I leave you with another quote from


We live in an egalitarian age, an age which sees every form of subordination or submission as a kind of degradation. It is therefore customary for me to think carefully about my use of the word submission in a wedding ceremony—were there any radical feminists who were invited to the wedding and so on? The temptation is to think that radical feminists are the ones who need to have this kind of thing explained to them. But it would be closer to the truth to say that conservative Christians need to hear these things again and again, and it is because we have not lived in accordance with the Scriptures on these issues that we even have radical feminists to begin with.


Corriejo said,

Do you not see that you are doing more harm than good? Belittling the important role of ezer by calling your [imaginary] wife “the best little helper”? I agree with “whatsername” that it sounds like you are referring to a pet instead of an adult woman.

I call my 4 yr old daughter “my little helper” because she IS little. But, I wouldn’t dare call my 17 yr old daughter “my little helper”, not because she is large (she is petite) but because she is so MUCH MORE than some little helper that stands there handing me the wrench when I need it.

The meaning of ezer implies strength and NOT junior assistant. Your wife is your strength. God is referred to as our “ezer” 26 times in the Old Testament. Is He also your “best little helper”? Is the Holy Spirit, the Helper, also your “best little helper” made for your own personal use?

You are clearly not understanding that Hebrew meaning of the English word translated “helper” when you use that demeaning terminology.

Also, no human being was made for the “use” of another human being. We were created to SERVE others but others were not created to be used by us. Your role as a husband is one of love and servanthood and dying to your own SELF and one of being concerned with how YOU may please your [imaginary] wife.

Christ put the emphasis on servanthood but patriocentrists put the emphasis on being served. When you look at women in this way you are not looking at them the way that God had intended.

What is your goal with using this sort of unbiblical terminology and eisegesis? Do you think it proves something when you get people angry with your words? Does that prove you must be right? Or could it mean that you are just offensive?

Q. How many feminists does it take to replace a light bulb?

A. That’s not funny.

Oh, Corriejo, for goodness sake lighten up. Please tell me you aren’t this sensitive to your own husband? Is the man afraid to compliment you? Are you teaching your daughters to be equally sensitive toward those who would compliment them, assigning and assuming motives based upon the least charitable interpretation of their words?

I may not be particularly petite, but I certainly don’t take offense at being called “little” by a man who is significantly taller and more muscular than I am. My husband treats me with love and respect, and because of our relationship I understand that there is nothing demeaning or belittling in his use of the word “little.”

Maybe you don’t have the same context for interpreting my husband’s words, but remember Molleth’s exhortation to “consider the actual claims in the least biased way?” Shouldn’t you grant my husband the same courtesy? Shouldn’t you interpret the words of our Christian brothers and sisters in the least biased way possible?

I’m thankful that my Big Hunka Man doesn’t judge my compliments to him as harshly as you judge his compliments toward me.  This would be a cold and lonely house if we judged each other with so much suspicion.

Ephesians 5:22

I can’t help but wonder exactly where feminism fits into Christianity, or how this verse fits into feminism.  Some of the men quoted below might have wondered too.

King James Bible
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

American Standard Version
Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Tyndale New Testament
Women submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

The Greek word for submit is hupotassō:  to subordinate; reflexively to obey: – be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Geneva Study Bible{7} Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, {8} as unto the Lord.

(7) Now he descends to a family, dividing orderly all the parts of a family. And he says that the duty of wives consists in this, to be obedient to their husbands.

(8) The first argument, for they cannot be disobedient to their husbands except by also resisting God, who is the author of this subjection.

Wesley’s Notes5:22 In the following directions concerning relative duties, the inferiors are all along placed before the superiors, because the general proposition is concerning submission; and inferiors ought to do their duty, whatever their superiors do. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands – Unless where God forbids. Otherwise, in all indifferent things, the will of the husband is a law to the wife. As unto the Lord – The obedience a wife pays to her husband is at the same time paid to Christ himself; he being head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

22. (Eph 6:9.) The Church’s relation to Christ in His everlasting purpose, is the foundation and archetype of the three greatest of earthly relations, that of husband and wife (Eph 5:22-33), parent and child (Eph 6:1-4), master and servant (Eph 6:4-9). The oldest manuscripts omit “submit yourselves”; supplying it from Eph 5:21, “Ye wives (submitting yourselves) unto your own husbands.” “Your own” is an argument for submissiveness on the part of the wives; it is not a stranger, but your own husbands whom you are called on to submit unto (compare Ge 3:16; 1Co 7:2; 14:34; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5; 1Pe 3:1-7). Those subject ought to submit themselves, of whatever kind their superiors are. “Submit” is the term used of wives: “obey,” of children (Eph 6:1), as there is a greater equality between wives and husbands, than between children and parents.

as unto the Lord—Submissiveness is rendered by the wife to the husband under the eye of Christ, and so is rendered to Christ Himself. The husband stands to the wife in the relation that the Lord does to the Church, and this is to be the ground of her submission: though that submission is inferior in kind and degree to that which she owes Christ (Eph 5:24).

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

5:22-33 The duty of wives is, submission to their husbands in the Lord, which includes honouring and obeying them, from a principle of love to them. The duty of husbands is to love their wives. The love of Christ to the church is an example, which is sincere, pure, and constant, notwithstanding her failures. Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify it in this world, and glorify it in the next, that he might bestow on all his members a principle of holiness, and deliver them from the guilt, the pollution, and the dominion of sin, by those influences of the Holy Spirit, of which baptismal water was the outward sign. The church and believers will not be without spot or wrinkle till they come to glory. But those only who are sanctified now, shall be glorified hereafter. The words of Adam, mentioned by the apostle, are spoken literally of marriage; but they have also a hidden sense in them, relating to the union between Christ and his church. It was a kind of type, as having resemblance. There will be failures and defects on both sides, in the present state of human nature, yet this does not alter the relation. All the duties of marriage are included in unity and love. And while we adore and rejoice in the condescending love of Christ, let husbands and wives learn hence their duties to each other. Thus the worst evils would be prevented, and many painful effects would be avoided.

Patriocentrist (n)

1.) a person who believes that a “the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church” and has angered at least one evangelical feminist, usually resulting in a blog, podcast or article(s) being written to mischaracterize what the person in question has said

As John Gill so aptly tells us about 1 Timothy 2:13

She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle’s reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him,

She is the best little helper a man could ask for and I thank God for making her for me and I thank her for making it easy to love her as Christ loved the church.

Carmon tells us on her blog today

As my wise husband says, when you write something on the internet, it’s like writing it on a public bathroom wall. Anyone can read it and discuss it. But for Christians to go from website to website, looking for opportunities to berate, argue, and tear down, is reprehensible behavior. Here’s my admonishment: Stop it! I am convicted again of the importance of guarding my mouth, even when it’s not moving. For the next week, I am going to be silent here and elsewhere online, and only post quotes which speak for themselves, or links, about the subjects of gossip and slander. It is my hope that it will encourage us all to be obedient servants to the clear commands of Scripture, and that we will be able to find a way to communicate properly with one another, in love, so that the watching world will not be able to find real fault with us for our dissension, but will only be able to resort to mocking us for our radical commitment to obedience to our Lord.

Go and read the rest of the blog post I recommend it highly and for one look forward to the seeing the quotes she will post this coming week.

What exactly do I mean by the title of this blog?

In early church history the term Christian was a derrogatory term for those who followed the Christ. Patriocentrist is a term coined by vicious people on the internet to misconstrue the Biblical Patriarch’s call to examine our modern lives in light of God’s eternal standards.

So I’ve decided to own the term. I’ll be that big bad patriocentrist that I keep hearing about. I my mind it’s better than a matriocentrist or a individuocentrist, or even a slanderocentrist.

This blog is an issue driven blog, it has a narrow focus that is examining the claims of the busy bodies, gossips, and other malicious nagging tounges to see if there is any truth. I contend that everyone of the leaders of this little band of wagging tounges has an agenda or has bought into the lies of someone who does.

I will occasionally serve up for your enjoyment patriarchs from past and present in their own words so you can see for yourself.