A month ago, I jumped into a Facebook exchange between a woman offering arguments exemplary of “Christian” feminism and her male interlocutors to observe the following:
The idea that “if the husband is fulfilling his role to love the wife then she will just naturally submit to his headship” is the ultimate escape clause for the feminist.
If we take this as axiomatic (which is the aim of “Christian” feminism), then ANY act of rebellion against the authority of the husband can be justified ad hoc. Simply assert that your rebellion is hubby’s fault for not loving you enough; boom, personal responsibility gone.
Be aware of this leaven.
***
(Dalrock wrote an excellent post on this concept, which he terms “Headship Sleight-of-Hand.” Go read it.)
***
The other thing you’ll see evidenced above is the feminist desire to have authority (autonomy/self authority at least, if not over the rest of the household) without responsibility.
That is, the wife doesn’t have a “boss” but if her autonomous actions get her into a mess then it’s the man’s job to clean it up. He has to sacrificially love her, after all, or he’s not keeping up his end of scripture’s mandate.
This frees up the woman to be a bad-actor without having to be accountable. Heads she wins, tails the man loses.
But in a Biblically-run household there is an order to things: the weight of responsibility lies squarely on the man’s shoulders, but, because his wife is ordered under him, he doesn’t have to worry about her subverting him and thus increasing his burden unnecessarily.
It’s like the first mate sinking the ship through insubordination and then demanding the captain still be the one to go down with it.
The post The Leaven of Feminism appeared first on The Chi Files.
