Sons of Patriarchy

[Pomopu]

Every country in the history of the world from 4000 B.C. to 1900 A.D., give or take, had an established church, and none of them were communist.

In turn, from 1918 to the present, there have been any number of communist states, and none of them have an established church.

So I'm a little puzzled, to say the least.

My issue is with the power, if that helps. Not about the issue of an established church.

 

[Pomopu]

You did not answer my question. I'll write this again.

Do the WCF and other forms of the Belgic Confession that uphold that the Magistrate has the authority to prohibit idolatry represent a "hellish vision" for government? Was every State governed by such principles deceived by the gates of Hell itself in upholding the first four commandments in various forms up until less than a century ago?

The Belgic does not. I ascribe to the Belgic. If a government has the power to force/coerce into 1-4, I view this as I clarified as the road to hell, since no Leviathan, no secular sphere, should take over the role of Christ. My concern is with the power a government can properly have, and its effects.

I want to be clear in who we are allowing to post who consider aspects of Reformed Confessions to be promoting ideas from the pit of hell.

24 male, brown hair, thin (kidding I gotcha)

I understand debates and concerns about the Sectarian States that do not allow for the free exercise of the Christian Religion, but you have made a sweeping claim that any legislation of the first Table is a hellish vision.

My concern is that the power which a State must accrue to itself to legislate 1st table leads to hellish visions.

Even the article by Clark deals primarily with whether or not the State should put idolaters to death or whether or not the Magistrate is in a position of authority over affairs of the Christian Church in an Establishmentarian context.

That is true.

That is not the issue here. Even those who rejected Establishmentarianism did not reject, wholesale, the idea that the Magistrate may punish public blasphemy or prohibit commerce on the Lord's Day.

That seems true.

You have made a sweeping claim that all such States represent a "hellish vision". Do you stand by that assertion? I don't care much about convincing you to get away from your position. I just want to know the views of the person I'm interacting with and whether you stand by your assertion.

For sure, for sure. Indeed, I think it is hellish for the State to tell a citizen to worship God, or that instead that a citizen can not worship their own false god. That is to say, I am an American, that believes in freedom of conscience in regards to things of religion.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

My issue is with the power, if that helps. Not about the issue of an established church.

Ok, so you're afraid of tyranny, and you think if the government tells people they can't blaspheme in public, we're going to get the Soviet Union?

Even though 100% of tyrannical communist states had no laws on the books enforcing the 1st table, and no state with an established protestant church has ever become communist?

And our government currently maintains a corps of secret police and secret courts that track our every movement? So they already do what you're afraid of?

For sure, for sure. Indeed, I think it is hellish for the State to tell a citizen to worship God, or that instead that a citizen can not worship their own false god. That is to say, I am an American, that believes in freedom of conscience in regards to things of religion.

It's a strange doctrine of hell that associates it with inability to sin. Usually that's what Christians attribute to heaven.

 

[Pomopu]

It's a strange doctrine of hell that associates it with inability to sin. Usually that's what Christians attribute to heaven.

What is hellish is that the sphere of the state, someone other than Christ, his Bible, or his church's officers, are telling me to worship Christ.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

24 male, brown hair, thin (kidding I gotcha)

Goodbye. You made a sweeping an impious claim against all laws that respect the first Table of the Law. Zero nuance. "Hellish vision". When (if) you realize how impious your post was then you may contact the Admins if you desire to post here again.

 

[MarrowMan]

What is hellish is that the sphere of the state, someone other than Christ, his Bible, or his church's officers, are telling me to worship Christ.

You are misunderstanding the role of the magistrate in enforcing the first table of the law. His role is not to call people to worship Christ in the same sense that ministers do, his role is to maintain the social order and, as part of that order, ensure the societal conditions that allow the gospel and the church to flourish. Part of that role is by not allowing that which subverts the gospel and inhibits the church to be given standing in the public sphere.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

What is hellish is that the sphere of the state, someone other than Christ, his Bible, or his church's officers, are telling me to worship Christ.

Who is telling others to worship Christ in hell, exactly?

Please pause, think about the words you're using, what they mean, and you'll see how little sense it makes to say that telling people to worship Christ has anything to do with hell.

Moreover, the premise that no one outside of "Christ, his bible, or his church's officers" can tell people to obey the first table is false.

Our own parents are not "Christ, his bible, or his church's officers," and are part of the "natural sphere," and yet they are commanded to raise their children "in the fear and admonition of the Lord."

And the civil government under the New Testament is explicitly compared to fathers in this regard: "Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers," Is. 49:23. Which is the proof text cited in our Confession on this point.

 

[MarrowMan]

It never ceases to amaze me that it is detestable to some that the magistrate, who's role is the well-being of the people, is somehow serving that role better by allowing in the public sphere that which is most detrimental to them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This thread is becoming a bit of a "meta" thread. Still, it demonstrates how a Confessional position can be misunderstood or twisted and is illustrative of the "quality" of the podcast in nuanced theological and political matters.

One might conclude, for instance, that I'm an original Westminister guy. I have had some pretty sharp disagreements about Establishmentarianism and rather believe that Erastianism or other forms of a State Church were the very reason why American Presbyterians (and even theDutch) modified their views on how much the Magistrate interferes in the affairs of the Church (or even how or whether it punishes idolatry).

That is a far cry, however, from admitting to the idea that "good" Christians must recognize some sort of Lockean or Jeffersonian view of liberty or laws where the religious convictions of Christians or the Law of God have no place in the legislation of the Nation. It represents a competing vision for "liberty" that we have already discussed. A parallel version of liberty has operated successfully in America for well over a century. It wasn't perfect (no governments are), but ti promoted a constrained notion of liberty that established laws that respected Biblical teaching without creating an Establishmentarian nation. It did not force its citizens to become Christians but neither did it permit them to openly blaspheme God in the public square or to engage in commerce on the Lord's Day.

The "hellish vision" we now live under is best exemplified by the Supreme Court in 2012 that overturned Natural Law on the institution of marriage and now forces citizens to recognize the profanation of marriage on the same notion of "liberty" that sees any laws based on "religious animus" as illegitimate. Not only so, but some Christians consider it the duty of Christians to promote this false form of liberty on Christian principles.

 

[J.L. Allen]

And here I just wanted to post regarding Byrd and the OPC to say that Byrd took flight.

 

[pgwolv]

And here I just wanted to post regarding Byrd and the OPC to say that Byrd took flight.

It was worth the wait

 

[MikeH]

It was worth the wait

Byrd took flight but that was least of the problems in that presbytery. This presbytery has a history of serious abuse issues.

 

[arapahoepark]

I guess so.

I listen to things I disagree with all the time.

The podcast isn't 100% wrong about some truths, but neither were Job's friends.

Prior to this was an episode about the Classical Education movement where he attempted to present a sort of "orthodoxy" about what constitutes the right kind of educational approach. It was supposed to make people come to the conclusion that the way Moscow is doing it is "wrong" as further proof that Wilson is bad.

If there is "connective tissue" in this podcast series, it's hard to discern. Theonomy is bad. Egalitarianism is good (Jesus and John Wayne participants as well as Russell Moore)? Abuse occurs in CREC (and now OPC) Churches because of patriarchal views that women are supposed to be quiet and keep pure for their future husbands. There's a way to educate children correctly and Moscow (as well as lots of other Christian homeschoolers) have it all wrong. The only good Christian political philosophy Is Classiclam Liberalism that never seeks to legislate the first Table of the Law and leaves Drag Queens alone to read stories to children.


I don't think it's really intended for someone who has the capacity to put the ideas into a coherent theological or political system of thought. It's designed for people who are supposed to take each episode in turn and be horrified by its contents and come to the conclusion that Wilson is bad news. The problem is that it's so incoherently connected that it destroys its credibility when it is aiming at real errors and excesses.

It's classic poisoning the well and genetic fallacies. I rolled my eyes when I saw the new one in the OPC, because as we all know, if one church does it well, everyone in the denomination is guilty.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

These people think the reason that there's not many cases of child sex abuse in the mainline churches is because they're egalitarian and "listen to women," when actually it's because the average age of their parishioners is 65, and the last of their kids aged out of the Sunday school program in the mid-90's.
And back when they still had children in their churches, they had just as many cases of abuse as anyone.

 

[ZackF]

Once again to quote Thomas Sowell, “compared to what?” Are there more incidences of abuse in these environments than the circles they run in? I am curious as to what prescriptive measures for education, marriage, and child upbringing this podcast promotes? Du Mez, from what I have read, checks off every single box on the current progressive milieu’s menu of acceptable beliefs. Personally, I have no issue with being able to separate diagnosis from treatment. There are those on the Left with great analytical ability. When they turn from description to prescription, I get off their bus. There are also those on the Right the may agree with more but often for the wrong reasons or by some other coincidence. However, some of these folks are terrible on both fronts.

 

[MikeH]

You all know that Peter Bell (podcast host) is a member in good standing of an OPC church, right?

Just want to put that out there as some claim he’s poisoning the well or is promoting some form of egalitarianism.

I don’t dispute the fact that some of the people he’s interviewed are egalitarians, pagans, apostates, and progressives but that doesn’t necessarily make him one.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

You all know that Peter Bell (podcast host) is a member in good standing of an OPC church, right?

Just want to put that out there as some claim he’s poisoning the well or is promoting some form of egalitarianism.

I don’t dispute the fact that some of the people he’s interviewed are egalitarians, pagans, apostates, and progressives but that doesn’t necessarily make him one.

That does more to make me concerned for the OPC than confident in the soundness of the podcast.

 

[MikeH]

That does more to make me concerned for the OPC than confident in the soundness of the podcast.

Well yeah, maybe we should be more concerned for the OPC after the account given in the latest episode.

I know first hand and from others in the OPC that these kind of hyper-patriarchal churches exist. The more hyper forms described in these episodes are the fertilizer that the seeds of abuse need to flourish.

All that to say, I wish Peter would spend more time interviewing conservative theologians who critique the theology of patriarchalism. It doesn’t have to be you’re either an egalitarian or patriarchalist. I believe both to be errors.

 

[MarrowMan]

Well yeah, maybe we should be more concerned for the OPC after the account given in the latest episode.

I know first hand and from others in the OPC that these kind of hyper-patriarchal churches exist. The more hyper forms described in these episodes are the fertilizer that the seeds of abuse need to flourish.

All that to say, I wish Peter would spend more time interviewing conservative theologians who critique the theology of patriarchalism. It doesn’t have to be you’re either an egalitarian or patriarchalist. I believe both to be errors.

How are we defining patriarchy?

 

[MikeH]

How are we defining patriarchy?

I would define it generally like this:
A construct that absolutizes, prioritizes or has as its ultimate end, the authority of men and the submission women and children.

This can be developed more and especially how it’s used to today it encompasses far more than simply “father rule.”

Let me also be real clear here. There is real authority and submission but it’s not absolute and is temporary or for this life only and only in specific roles a man or woman may find themselves in.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I would define it generally like this:
A construct that absolutizes, prioritizes or has as its ultimate end, the authority of men and the submission women and children.

This can be developed more and especially how it’s used to today it encompasses far more than simply “father rule.”

Let me also be real clear here. There is real authority and submission but it’s not absolute and is temporary or for this life only and only in specific roles a man or woman may find themselves in.

This seems really vague.

It is a priority for me that my pastor be a man and not a woman. Do I "prioritize the authority of men"?

 

[MikeH]

This seems really vague.

It is a priority for me that my pastor be a man and not a woman. Do I "prioritize the authority of men"?

Well brother, as I said it’s a general start and more could be added. I even said there are areas where there is real male authority, the being one.

I’d love to hear your definition though.

By priority I mean that men are viewed in such a way that makes them supreme or the thing that everyone or everything else was created to support.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Well brother, as I said it’s a general start and more could be added. I even said there are areas where there is real male authority, the being one.

I’d love to hear your definition though.

By priority I mean that men are viewed in such a way that makes them supreme or the thing that everyone or everything else was created to support.

Some men have a problem of using their authority as an excuse for unkind, tyrannical, or abusive behavior. It exists. I don't know if that's "patriarchy." I.e. I don't know if the problem is a particular doctrine, heresy, ideology, etc, or just their own sinfulness and pride.

Lesbian couples are as bad, if not worse on that front, and there's not a man in sight. Yet they're still cruel, abusive, domineering, etc.

And a lot of these guys don't have many marked doctrinal differences from what we call "complementarianism."

Moreover, some things that are cited as doctrinal differences between complementarianism and "patriarchalism," like that patriarchalism asserts that the civil government should ordinarily be run be men, are perfectly reasonable, and reflect the (often unstated) understanding of most people (Hillary and Kamala weren't the most popular candidates).

I think we should keep men with tyrannical or abusive tendencies from positions of leadership, and correct or discipline them as the situation requires. However, I'm suspicious of attempts to attribute their bad behavior to male rule or "patriarchy." To me that sounds a lot like the feminists I heard in college who attributed the problem of campus rapes to "traditional gender roles." Since these people don't believe in original sin and corruption, they have to find another scapegoat to account for sin, and traditional or christian beliefs like gender roles or male authority proves a convenient one.

 

[MikeH]

I don’t necessarily attribute bad behavior to any doctrine or male rule. I’ve already established that there is an appropriate male headship and appropriate authority and submission.

The human perpetrating any kind of abuse against another human is to blame. However, I see a tendency in a lot of patriarchal circles where the authority of a man is overemphasized or absolutized and that, when mixed with bad actors, leads to abuse because the authority of a man is seen as final and absolute. It doesn’t matter the situation, if the man says jump, the only acceptable answer from a woman or child is how high. It is a rigid system of conformity to the man’s desires and strips the woman or child of their human-ness.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I don’t necessarily attribute bad behavior to any doctrine or male rule. I’ve already established that there is an appropriate male headship and appropriate authority and submission.

The human perpetrating any kind of abuse against another human is to blame. However, I see a tendency in a lot of patriarchal circles where the authority of a man is overemphasized or absolutized and that, when mixed with bad actors, leads to abuse because the authority of a man is seen as final and absolute. It doesn’t matter the situation, if the man says jump, the only acceptable answer from a woman or child is how high. It is a rigid system of conformity to the man’s desires and strips the woman or child of their human-ness.

I haven't witnessed that personally, although I'm sure it exists somewhere.

Here in Peru men have to get their wives' permission to leave the house. A guy doesn't show up for soccer and the first thing everyone says is "I guess his wife didn't give him permission."

 

[pgwolv]

foolishest

I know this was a serious situation, but I couldn't help but think, what a Pauline word.

 

[MarrowMan]

I don’t necessarily attribute bad behavior to any doctrine or male rule. I’ve already established that there is an appropriate male headship and appropriate authority and submission.

The human perpetrating any kind of abuse against another human is to blame. However, I see a tendency in a lot of patriarchal circles where the authority of a man is overemphasized or absolutized and that, when mixed with bad actors, leads to abuse because the authority of a man is seen as final and absolute. It doesn’t matter the situation, if the man says jump, the only acceptable answer from a woman or child is how high. It is a rigid system of conformity to the man’s desires and strips the woman or child of their human-ness.

I agree with your objections. Domineering, tyrannical, and totalitarian male headship is a perversion of God's established order. In the current context "patriarchy" means different things depending on who you're asking, so it's always necessary to define our terms.

 

[Rom]

I don’t necessarily attribute bad behavior to any doctrine or male rule. I’ve already established that there is an appropriate male headship and appropriate authority and submission.

The human perpetrating any kind of abuse against another human is to blame. However, I see a tendency in a lot of patriarchal circles where the authority of a man is overemphasized or absolutized and that, when mixed with bad actors, leads to abuse because the authority of a man is seen as final and absolute. It doesn’t matter the situation, if the man says jump, the only acceptable answer from a woman or child is how high. It is a rigid system of conformity to the man’s desires and strips the woman or child of their human-ness.

I have witnessed the removal of agency from a wife and the domineering of a husband. It is a problem. Some of the trends towards patriarchy have been a counter motion and a whiplash to decades of effeminate men and feminism given free course. That caused the pendulum to swing to awful places - including the notion of an absolute authority invested in the man. As those on this thread have said, the problem is not male leadership and rule but the tyrannical abuse and twisting of a God-ordained order. Ironically, in my experience, many of these men shirk from God-ordained authorities above them in the ecclesiastical and civil realms and are the sort to hang up a "Don't Tread On Me" banner.

As for the podcast, this is the first episode I have listened to, only because it dealt with a case in an OPC church (I already knew Wilson was a problem). It was hard to hear what the lady conveyed. I am unaware of the ins and outs of this case, but I do hope there is an ecclesiastical and civil investigation if there has not been one.

May God help us all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You all know that Peter Bell (podcast host) is a member in good standing of an OPC church, right?

Just want to put that out there as some claim he’s poisoning the well or is promoting some form of egalitarianism.

I don’t dispute the fact that some of the people he’s interviewed are egalitarians, pagans, apostates, and progressives but that doesn’t necessarily make him one.

First, I am evaluating him on his content. It's not merely the Egalitarian authors he promotes, but he goes out of his way at times to use the language of critical theory in some of the episodes.

Secondly, as I've tried to articulate, I'm not sure what well he is poisoning because he seems to be digging a lot of holes that are disconnected or that he attempts to attribute to abuse or theological error. Two good examples are where he spends an entire episode "educating" the listener on what an appropriate understanding of a classical Christian School really is. I don't have hard opinions on that point but it's just a silly point to make that the schools operated by some CREC Churches push kids too hard early on and, therefore, are not properly teaching kids or teaching them how to think. There are likely tons of adults from those schools that would prove him wrong and I'm no fan of their movement. Add to this an entire episode about how a Christian ought to engage government, which we discussed at length. I'm willing to debate that issue but, suffice to say, the Classical Liberalism promoted is not the only "Christian" alternative to Stephen Wolfe's vision.

I am not listening ambivalent to the stories of abuse or even a lack of concern for the same. I share your concern about patriarchal movements before the word patriarchy took on on its current Critical Theory terminology. I was in the SoCal Presbytery from 2000-2003 and knew people in my Church who were attracted to the CREC when it formed and see the aftermath of the Federal Vision. I have the receipts of almost two decades of open opposition to the FV, Doug Wilson, and the like.

The problem is that Peter Bell only seems to know how to criticize the movement in the same way Du Mez or Russell Moore does. They expect their hearers to be uninformed and lacking in nuance and comfortable with egalitarianism or work ideas and charges of patriarchy are spread like peanut butter.

I'd love to see the stories of abuse connected in some meaningful manner. My frustration is that Peter is probably going to bring in some conservative voices who will represent a halfway critique of the movement because it will be steeped in Kline and fail to strike at the issues in the manner it deserves.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

Byrd took flight but that was least of the problems in that presbytery. This presbytery has a history of serious abuse issues.

I find it amusing that the opc thinks Byrd is egalitarian. I'm egalitarian and I can tell you she was soft comp at best. She was heading in the right direction but did not quite arrive, but the opc does have a true egalitarian churches in her midst (Texas) that I am aware of and I have found them very profitable and edifying. Its not like they are secret about either. My conclusion about how they handled Byrd was that she got so much heat because she was a woman and nothing else.