Eric had my attention from the very beginning when he mentioned, negatively, John Piper and Wayne Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, A Response to Evangelical Feminism. I began reading the book a year or two ago as part of my study of Biblical manhood, but I never could quite connect with their position. Something was inherently wrong, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.
Several evenings ago, I recommended the sixth chapter of James Wesley Stivers’ Eros Made Sacred while commenting on another blog. That chapter, originally written by Stivers as a stand alone essay to explore the conceptual affinity between the three doctrines, is an amazing wealth of thought and philosophy. I found it online yesterday and have copied and pasted it from another website and strongly recommend that if this material piques your interest, you order this short and powerful book and read it. There is a link on our Resources page. We gain nothing from the links on that page.
Chapter 6. Feminism, Witchcraft and Monogamy
113 Qualifier: It is not the view of 113Restoration that monogamy itself is the source of feminism and witchcraft, which is the impression which may erroneously be conveyed by this chapter, but state- and culture-enforced monogamy-ONLY laws. It is therefore the anti-polygyny laws that are feminism’s and witchcraft’s catalysts. The universal practice of polygyny by all men and women everywhere would be undesirable and impractical in this age.
Feminism, monogamy, and witchcraft form an unholy trinity working the destruction of Christian civilization. This is an astonishing assertion and one which will not sit well with most people. Most people will view witchcraft as a plausible rival of the Christian faith. Some will view militant feminism with distrust. But to associate monogamy with the two seems preposterous. To prove the linkage, let us begin with some basic definitions of these terms.
The sultry voice of Lesley Gore gets me every time. I can’t help but sing along. I grew up with my father’s music. Loved it…
Still do, but now older and wiser I see and hear things that shock me. Things that answer questions about how our culture went so wrong.
In December of 1963, Lesley released a single titled ‘You don’t own me’ that rocketed to #2 on the Billboard chart and went on to be a million copy seller. While she did not unseat the Beatles for the top spot, she daringly struck a violent blow near the beginning of the 1960’s sexual and feminist revolution. Her contribution to the assault on Biblical gender roles is unmistakable, and all couched in a catchy radio tune.
Reading their article and the comments highlights two very important things:
– The world knows there is a radical problem when no father is present, and
– They haven’t a clue that Scripture has a solution, writ LARGE that they choose to ignore.
Godly men are too few, but single moms/women (and their children) are not limited to the dregs of male choices. As clearly articulated in our articles, papers, links, refutations, etc, Scripture clearly teaches that a man may have more than one wife and be the father that so many boys need.
The marriage culture disaster in western civilization is fueled in large part by false monogamy-only doctrines and egalitarian mindsets that emasculate men and are decidedly UNbiblical. We’re just reaping the whirlwind we sowed…
Want to reverse the trend? Want to be part of the solution instead of the problem? Take God’s Word seriously and quit making excuses for why God calls Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David et al, righteous when they clearly had larger families than America’s 2.1 children.
It is not uncommon to hear the charge, or at least the undertone, when discussing what Scripture has to say concerning male and female roles that God must hate women. I mean, He requires that they submit to their husbands, desires that they be under male headship and seems not to have a problem with polygynous marriages. At the same time, men appear to have much more freedom and self determination. What gives? Does God indeed hate women? Is He a misogynist?