I always think I am in the middle of things. I overtake slow drivers, but it is the hoons that overtake me. I am always driving at the right speed. I am never too slow when people overtake me, nor a hoon when I am overtaking someone else.
When it comes to gender roles I think I am in the middle. I would call myself a soft complementarian where I say that men and women are equal but there are some differences. Egalitarians say men and women can do the exactly same things and then on the other side are those who are for the patriarchy who say men and women are different and in all areas of society men are to lead/rule. This book flat-out argues for patriarchy, they say:
Patriarchy is inevitable. God has built it into the fabric of the cosmos. It is part of the divinely created order. You could as soon smash it as you could smash gravity. It is natural and irrevocable.
They say that under God and under His original intentions patriarchy is good, but the problem is that we are sinful so we only ever see bad twisted examples of it. So it sounds a bit like communism - the problem with that is we are sinful and twisted and so it really hasn't been tried correctly.
Their argument comes from extrapolating Adam and Eve to be an example of society in general and perhaps not as a married couple in particular. To me, because of Genesis 2:24-25 it suggest that Adam and Eve are a married example and not a general example of men/women relationships in all areas of society.
As I read through this book, there was some good general advice for young men to stop prolonging adolescence, and to work out what they are going to do with their lives. There was also some good critiquing of our culture and pointing out some neo-pagan androgyny ideas we have and a bit on the war on gender itself. However, throughout it there was something I felt was overall off, and I didn't really know what it was until I read this line:
Because the father is the head, as he goes, so goes his household. And as households go, so goes society.
The father rules the household and society is made up of many households (and should be led by men). So if you want transformation it starts at home. My problem with this thinking, especially in a Christian book, is they are missing out on the one institution that is going to last longer than marriage or nations: the church. It is only the church that is going to make it into the new heavens and the new earth. It is through the message of the church that we see personal transformation. And this group of transformed people who make up the church, form little communities that love and serve society. If you are worried about society, focus on the church. If you are worried about marriages, focus on the church (a metaphor itself for marriage).
Overall, the accent in this book is about individuals being men and becoming husbands and under God finding their purpose. The church and its mission and purpose are generally overlooked. Overall churches don't really get a good wrap at all:
Thus we find ourselves in the Church Effeminate, where men may either check in their testicles with the usher in skinny jeans, sign a waiver promising not to upset the women, and softly croon about their boyfriend Jesus—or they may be escorted to the door by a mob of valiant heroes who will defend m’lady’s honor at any cost.
There may be some good pastors out there, but their function is to "spiritually shepherd and disciple you" and no real mention of the wider mission of the church to get swept up in. It is about your discipline to be a better man if your own father has failed you. But even finding a good pastor is hard:
A majority of pastors are themselves clueless bastards, weak in constitution and effeminate in conduct—nothing like the tough shepherds of old, who in more modern parlance we might call cowboys. Trying to submit to them is an exercise in futility and frustration, and ultimately will score the lines of resentment and immaturity even deeper into a clueless bastard’s psyche. But the West is still Christian enough that anyone can be near a church with good fathers—if it really matters to him.
Luckily there have been enough good households led by real men to stop the complete collapse of the West to mean that there are some good churches within driving distance, if that is important.
Most of the book was very individualistic, and church communities weren't played up. There was a chapter on fraternity, how men need to have male friends, to which I agree completely. But in this chapter, it seemed that really the utility of these friendships was about keeping company with people who will help you on your mission. Not about people who will help you be on Jesus' mission. There is a chance that these two may overlap, but overall, I am not sure the church the emphasis on the church and who you are under God was fleshed out enough.
So, I'm not sure what I was really hoping to get from a strongly pro-patriarchy book, but I would have hoped for less of an individual/national feel and more of an ecclesial feel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment