The blog where I rant about things that should be obvious to everyone

Saturday, June 16, 2012

The 100% reactive model is wrong

As I was driving today, I found that due to some recent work done on my car I all my radio presets had been lost. So as I was going through the stations, I came across focus on the family. I haven't spent too much time paying attention to main line christian culture in a while, so as today is the day before fathers day I wanted to see if it was as bad as I keep hearing in the manoshpere. And honestly it wasn't horrible. A year ago, I probably wouldn't have even noticed anything wrong with it. But thanks to such bloggers as Dalrock, and Christian Men's Defense Network I was keenly tuned in and waiting for them to engage in some man bashing or undermining of the wives submit to your husbands teaching.

The started out by bringing on a pastor who works with couples.
And he began with saying that a man is the head of the household.

So far so good.

Then that men need to submit themselves to God, and go to Him for direction first in their lives rather than as a last resort.

Good, good.

Then that when a wife sees her husband submit to God she will submit to him because it means that she will be submitting to God.

Uhhhh, a little ignorant on the nature of women and what's in the Bible, but go on.

Then that women will naturally not submit to a man who does not put God first the way that she puts God first.

Ok, you're off in the deep end now.

The second point that they made, that was just pure fiction, was that a man who is a material success, but is not a success at home, is a failure. The point being that your family has to come first and that men should not worship money and all that. They then went on to say that a man's family is a refection of him. So if you have kids and they are doing drugs and having sex and all that delinquent stuff, then you are a failure as not just a father but as a person and a Christian.

Aside from the message of not worshipping money, literally all of that is directly contradicted in the Bible.

First, I'm pretty sure that the whole concept of wives naturally submitting to their husbands when he acts in a way that she deems acceptable has been covered many times by other bloggers. Hopefully simply putting it in that frame makes it clear. And for all the women out there who are caterwalling “How can I submit to my husband if he is not submitted to God? Then I wouldn't be a godly woman!” submitting to other people who are not perfect, is not the same as sinning. Joseph submitted to Pharaoh, and it was righteous. Daniel submitted to Nebuchadnezzar in all things except those that would violate God's law, as did Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego. Neither Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar even claimed to serve God. But God wanted his servants to serve them. So clearly being perfect is not a requirement for leading and expecting to be followed, even with God's blessing.

For the second part, they flat out made it up. No where in the Bible does it say that if you are a godly man then you will have a godly wife and godly children. It does address the idea of putting your family first though. 1St Corinthians 7:29From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not”, Luke14:26 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”.

God comes first. And doing whatever you need to do to follow Jesus comes before your family. There is no ambiguity in the Bible on this.

And when we look at godly men in the Bible, if anything there is an inverse correlation on how Godly their children are.

Job was one of the most godly men in the Bible.
Job 1:1 “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.”

Job's children were contently partying, and as he was afraid of their sin he would make sacrifices for them.
Job 1:5 “And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”

King David was a man after God's own heart. David's children committed rape, murder, insest, and rebelled against him nearly overthrowing the kingdom.

And if you look at the line of the kings of Israel, there is a lot of good, bad, good, bad, going on. There are only 4 kings who followed God who's father also followed God. 4 out of 23. Granted, there were only about 9 total kings that followed God (discounting Saul), but still, one can't make the claim that following God as a man means that your kids will as well.

The heart of the problem for people that profess this type of Churchianity (Besides ignorance of the Bible or failure to apply it) is that they view women and children as being completely reactive beings. When it comes to women, gamers actually tend to do this as well. They think that if a woman leaves, starts acting bitchy, cheats, or files for divorce, that it must be because the man was not alpha enough. Substitute alpha for godly, and you have the Churchianity view. But the Bible teaches that both women and Children are sinful beings, possessing their own free will. While it is true that both women and children are more reactive then men, it's not 100%. And sometimes when a woman or child does something wrong, it's simply because their heart is desperately wicked.

1 comment:

  1. Evangelica Americana only preaches, nay screams, the law as the path to salvation. Taking the shape of American exceptionalism in worldy and outward success, that others less apparently successful aspire to.

    The Gospel is too extreme, too foolish for a people so shortsighted and ignorant of church history and suffering. They are especially ignorant (sometimes deliberately so) of the faithful theologians contending against precisely such heresies that said radio preacher is expounding.