Sins Of The Father

Dalrock’s new  post, Why the blind spot matters, has proven to be fertile ground for a ton of great comments. I would encourage my readers to give it a look if they haven’t already. I have found that his comment threads have been very hit or miss as of late, but that post is definitely in the hit category.

 

Update: Now to present some of my own thoughts.

To begin with, part of the problem with “blaming women” or holding them to account in society right now draws itself from the nature of how men react to women. There are two natural impulses which men have towards women:

  1. Have sex with them
  2. Protect them

The second impulse is the problem here. Men have a natural desire to protect women, and unfortunately absent careful anchoring that protection impulse can go awry. For example, that protection impulse can lead men to protect women from being sad or upset. And guess what can make women sad or upset? If you guessed rebuking them for doing wrong, give yourself a pat on the back.

The key to solving this is to identify what is going on, and to actively work towards replacing unhealthy applications of this impulse with healthy ones. It needs to be drilled into men that rebuking women can in fact be the loving response. The response that actually protects them from the real harm to them- not that which threatens the body, bu the soul. And of course that is sin.

Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

(James 1:15)

Next, I want to address the issue of Adam’s responsibility over Eve. As other pointed out in that thread, God does not call Adam out for failing to “protect” or “stop” Eve. You would think that, if that were an issue, God would call him out for it. But He doesn’t. This fact, plus the wording of Genesis 3:16, led at least one Church Father to explain that Adam didn’t have headship before the Fall. Rather, headship came about as a result of the Fall. Assuming that is true (and I don’t believe it has been conclusively settled for either Catholics or Orthodox), then Adam wasn’t responsible for Eve. And thus couldn’t be held responsible for her sin.

But even if Adam had headship before the Fall (and I think there is a strong argument for this, although I’m not certain about it), that doesn’t mean he was responsible. Again, God was calling out sins there. And He didn’t mention that particular sin. Further, nowhere in Scripture is this argument to be found. And none of the Church Fathers mentioned it either. It is wholly a modern invention, a product of our misplaced attitude and understanding of women.

[More to come as I think on it]

 

 

Advertisements

20 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Churchianity, Red Pill, The Church

20 responses to “Sins Of The Father

  1. stmichaelkozaki

    Come on, at least drop a comment of your own here :-)! Here’s mine:

    Perhaps the greatest societal ill today? Our collective inability to assign blame to women. Parents, especially mothers, should be pilloried for children who are out of control. Were we to assign consequences for children’s behavior to their parents and give them authority to deal with it, we would see a complete and utter change in how we treat fathers. Suddenly “dad” would be back in style and women would be very unlikely to have kids out of wedlock, beg him to stay, and our jails would empty. Problem solved on all fronts.

    Also: for some reason, men cannot demand performance from wives or children, esp. daughters, these days. I’ve never understood it, myself. A husband’s job is not to be “liked”. It’s to perform and demand performance. And his spouse is the very first on the list (after himself). And the kids are next, esp. daughters in today’s world.

    Also: I’m fascinated by the Dalrock mindset, seemingly indignant religion won’t rise up against the “woman can do no wrong” cultural mindset. Does he really expect religion to be anything else but a reflection of the people who make it up? Yawn. Maybe if he was Muslim or trad Catholic or Mormon or Mennonite, some religion with a history/claim of leadership authority (e.g. no congregational vote!) perhaps he might have a point. But no, he’s a standard American Prot; he can’t blame religious leaders for reflecting their flock, not the other way around. Sheese, spare me the indignation. Why I don’t read him; reminds me of Oprah.

  2. @ Michael

    I am going to. Just want to think about my response before doing so.

    DG: Also, I fixed an error with the link above.

  3. Updated the post with my initial thoughts.

  4. Anonymous Reader

    For example, that protection impulse can lead men to protect women from being sad or upset. And guess what can make women sad or upset? If you guessed rebuking them for doing wrong, give yourself a pat on the back.

    The transition from Strong, Independent Woman to Don’t Hit Me, I’m A Girl (or the churchgoing version, I’m The Weaker Vessel) can be completed in a matter of seconds. That’s when some White Knight will show up and demand to know Who Made This Girl Cry? in order to establish himself as the protector of women, the biggest man in the room, and so forth.

    All of this is predicated on the weird amalgm of feminism and Victorianism. Women are delicate china dolls that must be handled with infinite care lest their fee-fees become hurt AND at the same time are bold, fearless, strong, equal-to-or-better-than-any-man so just get out of their way. One expects that from feminists, who really do not think but just emote; however it is jarring to see it from older men who claim “logic” and “reason” as their guide. They are not actually thinking at all, but just reacting to the emotional cues women put out.

    One of the benefits of The Glasses / Red Pill is learning to really see the games that women play, the lies they tell themselves first, and thus to become much less likely to fall for such things.

    As for the culpability of Adam, IMO it is not a coincidence that the notion Adam was responsible for Eve’s actions has really taken hold since the 1970’s, just as 2nd stage feminism made legal authority over women impossible. It’s pretty obviously another case of the wider culture influencing the church culture, although it’s dressed up in various ways to make it look otherwise.

    Responsibility without authority will lead to bad outcomes every time. It is the standard model for male-female interactions now, especially for married couples. Which explains a lot, when you think about it.

  5. My own educated guess (and it’s really nothing more than that) is that Adam did not have headship over Eve before the Fall. At the time, there was no concupiscence and so they were both naturally inclined towards God’s will. There wouldn’t have been any need for headship, because they were both naturally on the same page as it were. It was paradise after all. There will also be no headship in heaven, as people in heaven are not married to each other and everyone’s will accords with the Divine will. So it makes sense to me that there was no headship prior to the fall.

  6. earlthomas786

    My own educated guess (and it’s really nothing more than that) is that Adam did not have headship over Eve before the Fall.

    I’ll have to respectfully disagree. My basis…she came from one of his ribs. After God, I should be led to believe I have headship over my own body.

  7. Earl:

    If God took your rib from you, is it really still yours?

  8. earlthomas786

    If God took your rib from you, is it really still yours?

    Yeah.

    I don’t live with my parents anymore, but they are still my parents.

  9. Earl:

    I really don’t think that reasoning holds water. First, headship is a quality of the nuptial relationship; you’re reasoning suggests that it is something more fundamental between Adam and Eve.

    Second, your analogy doesn’t really work. You aren’t a thing, and God didn’t take you away from your parents.

    Third, one doesn’t have headship over his body; your body doesn’t have a will of its own that is morally bound by your commands. Headship doesn’t really describe the relationship between you and your body.

    Finally, if the “my rib, my choice” reasoning is followed through, it leads to the absurdity of organ donors having headship over transplant recipients. If God takes something from you, or you give something to someone else, it is no longer yours. That’s how giving and taking works.

    I think the more convincing argument is that Adam and Eve were husband and wife even before the fall, and that that implies Adam had headship over Eve, because headship is a quality of marriage. So then the question becomes whether or not headship is a quality of marriage that is a consequence of the fall, or if it was there from the beginning.

  10. info

    @Time

    Adam named the animals(indicating his authority over them) and named his wife as “woman” before the fall and named her “Eve” after the fall. Headship existed from the very beginning.

  11. Info:

    I think even that reasoning fails, because it posits a more fundamental headship of men over women rather than husbands over wives. Headship is an aspect of marriage; I don’t have headship over any random woman walking down the street. And I don’t think God’s punishment that Adam have power over Eve makes much sense if Adam already had power over Eve.

  12. stmichaelkozaki

    DG: thanks for that update. A few comments:

    1) One Jewish interpretation of the creation/fall says Eve was alone when with the serpent, and this is telling. Where was Adam? To them, the “serpent” was a dragon who seduced Eve, and Adam was afraid and abandoned her to the serpent’s wiles. Myself, I’m neutral to this interpretation but from an older Jewish perspective where women/child were always under the authority/protection of a man always (they couldn’t own property) it makes sense.

    2) I wouldn’t say it’s “natural” for men to be afraid to offend a woman’s sensibilities. I think this is more cultural than inherent. Muslims & Asians have a different take it, lots of shades. I think it’s Westerners who really take this “woman can do no wrong” idea to the implosion of society. But I’m limited in my experience with both cultures and it’s just what I’ve seen when dealing with both, chivalry seemed absent.

  13. Michael, I agree that it isn’t natural for men to be afraid to offend women’s sensibilities. However, when the Protection instinct in men doesn’t develop in a healthy direction, that can be one outcome.

  14. info

    @TimFinnegan
    The reasoning is sound. This indicates Adam’s Authority over Eve. Not that all women are under all men’s authority.

    And 1 Corinthians 11:3 indicates that women cannot be superior in rank to men although man can be in superior rank to women. The head of woman is man.

  15. info

    Note that, even though Eve was deceived and sinned first, God holds Adam – not Eve – responsible for sin and death entering the world. Why? Because Adam was in charge. Authority and responsibility go hand-in-hand.

  16. earlthomas786

    ‘I think even that reasoning fails, because it posits a more fundamental headship of men over women rather than husbands over wives. Headship is an aspect of marriage; I don’t have headship over any random woman walking down the street. And I don’t think God’s punishment that Adam have power over Eve makes much sense if Adam already had power over Eve.’

    Adam wasn’t talking about a random woman though…he said Eve was ‘flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones’. That was before the fall.

  17. Earl and info:

    So your position is that Adam and Eve had some relationship which was significantly different from the relationship men and women have now, meaning we can’t extrapolate the way they ought to have behaved with each other to the way we ought to behave now? If that’s the case then why do we even talk about Adam and Eve?

    And it still doesn’t answer what the point of God saying “and you shall be under your husbands power” is if Adam already had power over Eve.

  18. earl

    So your position is that Adam and Eve had some relationship which was significantly different from the relationship men and women have now, meaning we can’t extrapolate the way they ought to have behaved with each other to the way we ought to behave now?

    And it still doesn’t answer what the point of God saying “and you shall be under your husbands power” is if Adam already had power over Eve.

    No…the only game changer in their relationship was sin and death were introduced. Eve rebelled against her husband and God, God had to tell her straight up she’s under his authority now.

  19. Adam most likely had headship over Eve prior to the fall.

    1. Eve is created as a helpmeet for Adam rather than at the same time.

    2. Adam names Eve. Adam also names the animals.

    3. Eve comes from a part of Adam.

    4. The case can be made based on the comparison of the creation accounts in Gen 1-3, that it was only Adam that received the commands from God being that much happened between the creation of Adam and Eve and Adam’s responsibility.

    We learn that Eve was deceived but Adam chose to sin (Gen 3, 1 Tim 2), and we can see this in how she was deceived: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” — “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

    5. Gen 2 indicates that it the man who separates from his parents to create the family unit: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”

    6. Text of Gen indicates man(kind) is created in the image of God. Eph 5 shows us that marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church. Marriage was present prior to the fall. If there was no headship, then there is no reflection of Christ and the Church. Given that the Trinity is present at creation and that man is created in God’s image, it’s likely that there was headship prior to the fall because it reflection the image of God and the future Christ-Church.

    7. When God comes to the garden to talk to them after they sinned, He calls for Adam.

    8. The pattern of punishment due to sin is to increase the punishment. God told Adam he would surely die if he ate of the fruit. The other punishments were punishments of increase. The ground was cursed and Adam needed to work harder, as he was already commanded to tend to the garden. Eve’s pain was greatly multiplied in childbirth, as there was already pain prior to the fall. This likely indicates the second half of the punishment — “Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” — is about the desire and choice of Eve to rebel or submit to her husband while emphasizing the prior relationship (headship). Hebrew word “desire” is used in Gen 4 for Cain’s desire to cause him to sin, and in Song of Songs for sexual desire.

    9. Adam is punished for listening to the voice of his wife [and] eating of the fruit. While not definitive, if Eve was of the same position as Adam it’s likely he would have just been punished for eating the fruit. Not for listening to his wife and eating of the fruit.

    I think that 4-8 are the most convincing of the points, but all of the arguments together present a solid case. There are no textual clues that indicate that there was even positioning in the roles of marriage.

    All of these textual clues is why I consider that is about 99% likely that there is headship prior to the fall.

  20. I think that 4-8 are the most convincing of the points, but all of the arguments together present a solid case.

    I agree; I think there is a very solid case to be made; I just don’t think reasons 2 and 3 that you list are convincing. Either the relationship is something which can be extrapolated, meaning that the rib and the naming posit a headship of men over women, or it can’t be extrapolated meaning that Adam and Eve were substantially different than the rest of us. 4-8 that you list are much more convincing, and I don’t have an answer to them at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s