Posts Tagged ‘Feminism’

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.

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