and he is us.
Dalrock’s most recent post, “the sound of a rebellious woman,” features several good conversations in the comments. One of them concerned authority, while another focused on who was responsible for the lack of admonishments directed towards women in the western church. Cane Caldo entered both, leaving several excellent comments, a few of which bear repeating here. The first:
This is the link you are supposed to create, based upon his suggestion. If you ask those husbands who quip and wink, they’ll tell you that they are just being gentle, humble, and sage. If you’ve never done it, I suggest you tell a group of AmXian husbands that their wives are not quiet or gentle. They will rage. (More on that in a second.)
The fear here–and Mark would know this–is that the husbands will feel that their wives have been impugned. Again: Look at what brought down Mark Driscoll. He trounced hundreds of husbands, and his church grew and grew while churches around Mars Hill dried up; because AmXians wives AND husbands love it. But when a critical mass of women were offended (which in comparison was a very small number) Mark had to go. The husbands’ anger galvanized around Mark’s mistreatment of women. Women didn’t rise up and kick Mark out. Men did.
Churchians are Blue Pill, and pedestalize women. If you take away their pedestal, the worshippers get angrier than the goddesses. Pastors, generally, aren’t up on pedestals. Most men think pastors are either lame, or mountain-top yogis who can’t relate to mortals; often both.
and the third:
Authority and power are not the same thing. For example, the term “rebellion” betrays the fact that one doesn’t have authority. (“For no one ever hated himself…”) So the term “female rebellion” unavoidably implies that they do not have authority. Since we are still in the age of female rebellion, then men still have the authority; even if they wield incredible power. That power of female rebellion exists only in the hands of those men who are willing to uphold it, and, yes, the state does uphold power for women.
Don’t misunderstand me! I do NOT mean to say that all men hold authority. I meant that when it is held, whoever holds it are men, and they are never women.
In fact, it is very similar to Mark Driscoll. My description of his transfer of authority from the husbands of the congregation to his wife (and therefore himself) is really analogous to how authority in America has transferred from men to women through women’s suffrage. Ultimately, women still aren’t in power, but the men in power have more authority than ever.
Both comments lead me to this-
It is men, and not women, who are the main obstacle to be overcome. Cane makes a lot of points, but ultimately one of the major ones is that you cannot “fix” American Christianity until you deal with men who pedestalize women. Female rebellion is only possible because men make it possible. I say “make” on purpose. It isn’t simply that it is allowed, but that it is enabled. If you were to actually speak up against female rebellion in church, then the White Knights there would take up arms against you.
It is important to note that while many men are afraid of their wives, that doesn’t necessarily make them a full White Knight. A White Knight goes beyond acting in perceived self interest, and actually tries to promote “his own” (actually another) agenda. Most men are relatively passive here. The problem is that the WKs tend to be quite aggressive, and know how to rope other men into helping them.
All of which means that any effort to bring about reform and eliminate “Churchianity” will require the neutralization of White Knights in leadership position. The good news is that going after them should actually be easier than trying to assail female rebellion right now. White Knights are less apt at defending themselves than women, and are less likely to get support from other men in their defense. At least, that is my read on the matter. If anyone disagrees feel free to explain why in the comments.
On the same vein, this topic got me thinking about the various types or groups of men who help perpetuate the system. I am going to use this post to try and categorize them, if only to sate my own abnormal INTJ curiosity. Here is what I have so far:
- The Pedestalizer- the classic White Knight. These guys think women are living goddesses who can do no wrong, and will defend them to the last man and child.
- The Powermonger- a variant White Knight. These guys defend women, but do so because they see it as a tool for giving themselves greater power. They don’t pedestalize women, and often look down on them, but are careful not to show it.
- The Player- a cad or PUA. Someone who has found a way to benefit (to varying degrees) from female rebellion, primarily by easier sexual access to women. Usually has a good understanding of female nature. Some merely seek to benefit from the system, while others actually find ways to preserve it.
- The AFC- Average Frustrated Chump. These guys are enablers to enablers- while often not full on White Knights, they will support White Knights when the call is sounded- with reasons ranging from fear to guilt.
Any other categories that I missed?