The Godly House-Wife

[Esaias]

But getting back to the church analogy...

Since the church is Christ's Bride, she is to fulfill her wifely responsibilities. And that includes "guiding the house" as well as "guarding the house".

This necessarily means the church has authority to determine certain things. Just as a wife has authority to make various determinations concerning how the household is managed, so too does the assembly.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But getting back to the church analogy...

Since the church is Christ's Bride, she is to fulfill her wifely responsibilities. And that includes "guiding the house" as well as "guarding the house".

This necessarily means the church has authority to determine certain things. Just as a wife has authority to make various determinations concerning how the household is managed, so too does the assembly.

A man might say nothing about wearing shoes in the house. But if the wife says "No shoes are to be worn in the house, all visitors and residents must take off their shoes before coming in the house" then that's pretty much how it is to be.

Likewise, there may be things unspoken in the Word, but the church nevertheless has authority to make certain determinations. And, of course, that requires inquiry into which and to what extent that authority extends.

[Amanah]

[Amanah]

Patriarchy is responsible for the creation of Western Civilization.

Feminism is the Marxist attempt to destroy that Civilization. Feminism is promoted via public education, TV, and media.

Feminism is the lie that serving your employer is freedom while serving your husband and children is slavery.
The truth is that 90% of the jobs that women will be employed in are drudgery.
Few will actually have a fulfilling career.

Women reject the leadership of their husbands and depend on welfare state to take the role of their husbands for protection and provision.

Men want respect, assistance, sex, and children.
Women want to be cherished, loved and to find fulfillment in families.
The patriarchal family provides fulfillment to the needs of men and women.

[Amanah]

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

Seems a little robotically religious when you line it up as mere rules. Yet, leadership is all about friendship through honest love. We drive cattle, but we lead and protect sheep. No one follows out of force, there isn't devotion, and loyalty. There is only fear which motivates submission. Loyalty, and love, at only comes through trust which is built upon love and devotion.
People who hate me, hate every word that comes out of my mouth. They also salivate at every misfortune. Yet, those who love me are faithful, loyal, and protective. Words I say are cherished, and a misfortune is met with weeping for me. Big differences and bigger when it comes to leading people. Be it the church family, the construction crew, wife, and children.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

Other than the voting thing, how is any of what you listed Biblical?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Other than the voting thing, how is any of what you listed Biblical?

He thought it was.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

If Biblical patriarchy is God's design for the family, then why would you be alarmed at the idea of society recognising and supporting it? Consider that, for the most part, Biblical patriarchy has been (to one degree or another) the standard family format in Western Christian civilisation except for the last 100 years or so (really going downhill the last 50 years).

Women could not vote until 1920 in America. In the rest of the world, women were allowed to vote starting around the 1890s going up to the 1980s. So the idea of women voting for government officials or taking part on referendums is a completely new and novel idea, coinciding by the way with the rise of socialism.

By extending voting rights to women, the family was essentially destroyed as a political unit. Women were now a "block" for politicians to pander to. Women could unite as a block and make political demands, which pits women against men. It was one of the major goals of the feminist movement, and it was necessary in order to drive a wedge between men and women. The old "divide and conquer" strategy.

Biblically, women are not to usurp authority over men. According to the Bible, when women run things politically, it is a sign the nation is under Divine Judgment. Being an elector places one in a position of helping to run the country, since the electors are supposedly the "deciders" of public policy and the ones who choose representatives to manage government.

Of course, none of this even matters now since elections are rigged electronically and election results cannot actually be verified.

As for having "no rights", we really need to get away from thinking in terms of "muh rights". The Bible doesn't really focus on everyone's "rights" but rather everyone's responsibilities and obligations. When God establishes an obligation to do something, one therefore "has the right" to do that thing. Biblically, women have certain responsibilities, and Biblically they are dissuaded from certain other things. As a result, one cannot have a "right" to do that which God specifies belongs to another. For example, no woman "has the right" to rule over her husband as a master. Since rights come from God, the only rights that exist are those granted by God. Man cannot grant that which God has not granted him the right to do.

What "rights" would be disallowed to women in a Christian, Biblical society? The right to divorce her husband and take the kids and all his money and property for the flimsiest of reasons? A right to alimony in just about all cases? You mentioned a fear that a husband could kick his wife to the curb and take the kids. Well, that's exactly what women do to men all the time in today's society.

In a Bible-based society, divorce for "any reason" doesn't exist. There must be Biblically valid reasons for divorce. Which as a matter of fact is generally how it has always been in society for the last 1800 some odd years anyway, until the advent of "no fault" divorce and the decriminalisation of adultery and spousal abandonment.

In a Christian family - regardless of the surrounding culture - the family orders its life according to God's Word. A family living Biblically wouldn't even notice any changes in their lifestyle if tomorrow all of society suddenly started following Biblical principles as the basis for law and jurisprudence and social policy. There is currently no law and no social policies or even societal peer pressures that force Christian wives to submit to the authority of their husbands. Rather, Christian wives do such because they believe the Bible and seek to obey God. Christians who actually follow the Bible in their lives are little theonomies already.

As for women not having any say in the lives of their children, where is that coming from? Under what conditions would a woman need to go to court and seek governmental interference in her family's life in order for her to "have a say" in her children's lives? What does that even mean? Does it mean if a woman is married to a Christian but she is an atheist that she ought to have the authority to raise her children as atheists? And her husband ought to be forced by the state to acquiesce in her demands?

If she is a Christian, and her husband is a Christian, then what's the problem? Are you saying a Christian woman ought to have the legal right to sue her Christian husband because she wants her kids to go to one particular school but he wants them to go to another?

I don't understand what "loss of rights" you are speaking of. I think the feminists and the antichristian propaganda elements in our country have successfully convinced people that if we follow the Bible it will entail horrors untold and losses unmentionable. It's a fear tactic meant to keep people from following the Bible.

As I said, a Christian family following the Bible doesn't need the state to enforce the Bible on their lives. A Christian woman following the Bible doesn't need the state to enforce the Bible on her life. No Christian needs the state to enforce anything against them... unless they are seeking to do wrong in the first place.

As for arranged marriages, there is no Scripture that I am aware of that authorises a father to sell off his daughters to whom he will with no regard for her own feelings in the matter. The Bible does however teach that parents can refuse to authorise a marriage of their child. And again, that is how it used to be in Christendom up until relatively recently. You couldn't get married without parental consent. Then, countries began to introduce "age of consent" laws, which originally had to do with how old you had to be to get married without parental authorisation. Eventually, parental authorisation was reduced to only applying to people under 18 (or 17, or in some jurisdictions I believe it can be as low as 16). Again, all of this is part of a larger trend tending towards the destruction of the family unit in a scripted agenda to remake society into a much more malleable and controllable mold.

The long standing traditional (and Biblical) approach to marriage worked out pretty well for civilisation. Recently, feminists and humanists began to agitate that such a system was horrible and oppressive, and if we just do away with all that old fashioned traditionalism we can have Freedumb (tm) and everyone will be much happier. And the actual results? Marriage has become a joke, men and women are both miserable, families are practically nonexistent, everyone has become a consumer driven by irrational desires, dancing to the puppet strings of those who control society and profit off the people's lunacy. Nobody knows which bathroom to go to anymore, there is no cohesion, no common sense, and no rationality anymore.

The feminists have achieved their goals, and the insanity you see everyday around you is what they were aiming for. That might be a strong clue that we need to get back to the old ways of doing things, back before everyone got all stupid.

[Esaias]

https://feminism.eserver.org/theory/...omens-Movement

Organised feminism did not really kick off until the first Women's Conference hed in Seneca Falls, America, in 1848. To begin with, the Women's Movement evolved out of social reform groups such as the Abolition of Slavery, the Social Purity and Temperance movements. Women began to realise that in order to transform society they would need their own organisations to do so. They campaigned upon a whole range of issues; from guardianship of infants, property rights, divorce, access to higher education and the medical professions, to equal pay and protective legislation for women workers - many of which women are still campaigning for today!

...

1940s and 1950s
The war had challenged stereotypes in the workplace and so women began to enter the employment market in much larger numbers. It soon became apparent that some of the burden of family responsibility needed to be shifted onto the state. Together with the trade unions, the women's movement fought hard for a welfare state system which would provide this and act as a safety net for society's most vulnerable. This is perhaps one of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CENTURY.

...

1960s and 1970s
These decades saw the radicalisation of the feminist movement, led by American women. The mass entry of women into the workforce and the Pill changed women's traditional role within the family. Feminists demanded the right to abortion on demand, free childcare provision and equal pay.