Cultural Mythology and the Battle of the Sexes (Updated)

I am responding to this item posted at OfB where I am an Associate Editor.
(In case you are wondering, that fancy title is little more than a cover by which I can wheedle vendors into giving me stuff for free, leverage sources of information who might not give a rat’s patootie otherwise, and so forth. Granted, the Senior Editor would likely publish almost anything which fired me up enough to write, no one at that e-zine makes a dime from the work. With advertising, it just about pays for itself.)

* * * * * *

Humanity is fallen. For this reason, we tend to offer some honor to folks who do what they are supposed to do. We want to encourage more of it, which is the other side of the blade we use to slicing and dicing those who fail, or actively transgress what is proper and fitting.

The danger is when we pretend to apply one standard, and substitute another in its place.
The Bible is a Hebrew document. I’ve offered large amounts of material to justify a distinction between Western Civilization and Hebrew Civilization, as well as proof modern Judaism is no longer Hebrew, but a Westernized (Hellenized) perversion of it. The Christian Scriptures are inherently Ancient Hebrew in nature, and without understanding that unique mystical epistemology, you will miss some of the best stuff when you read them.

Here in our Postmodern Western world, there are multiple layers of cultural mythology between us and understanding what the New Testament writers meant, never mind the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul writes:

Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:9-14, NET Free)

This is not merely spouting his Pharisaical demands. Paul had already spent more than a decade breaking himself away from the Talmudic garbage, which Jesus called “traditions of the elders,” but was speaking from a very clear and solid grasp of the Ancient Hebrew outlook. Furthermore, that outlook is being proved correct when we read between the lines what manipulative pick up artists say works with women. Those manipulations work because real pick up artists ignore the cultural mythology and what women believe about themselves, and take full advantage of how women actually operate. Part of the scientifically verifiable human behavior pattern is how women cogitate. There is something inherent in female nature which is flexible and adjustable about facts and logic. Women are able to ignore facts and logic as some things in this world are much more important. Otherwise women would be unwilling and unable to follow their husbands when God changes their calling.

It’s not misogyny. That is, Paul is speaking from God’s revelation, while every cultural background which argues on any grounds is speaking from the lies of Satan. It has nothing to do with whether women can become good solid scholars and theologians. It’s a complete failure to notice the cultural mythology to which most of Western Christendom clings.

A further error of Western Christianity is ignoring the sharp divide between the Two Realms, that of the Spirit and that of the Flesh. “That which is from the Spirit Realm is spiritual in nature, and what is from Fleshly Realm is earthly.” Sound familiar? Jesus said it, and Paul echoed it copiously. Christianity assumes some folks are Heaven Born, that we share an eternal identity which is not available to those without Christ. What we have below is concrete and specific; what’s above is altogether different and requires the use of parabolic language because it is out of reach of the fleshly intellect. Here’s the main point of contention: Most Western Christians deny the intellect is fallen. That’s heresy, and approaches blasphemy. The intellect is part of the flesh. The mind is incapable of understanding, nor even wishing spiritual things, says Paul. It is not supposed to rule in decision making, but to implement the decisions made in the spirit, which was brought to life by union with His Spirit.

Both Creation and the Fall have pre-conditioned each sex to exhibit qualities and character traits unique to that sex. At the same time, we realize there is a large overlap of common humanity. God granted to humanity Law Covenants, such as Noah and Moses, as the means to finding what’s the best possible world here in the Fallen Realm. If you have a spiritual birth, an eternal identity, the Law Covenants become what they were always meant to be, parables of higher ineffable truths. We love to quote that passage about “rightly dividing the word” and try to forget it was referring to the Old Testament, where those Law Covenants are recorded. We are supposed to understand those old covenants, as they indicate something about how the mind needs to organize itself to obey the spiritual imperatives it cannot grasp.

Intellectual achievement is fleshly, under the realm covered by the Law Covenants. Your theology is nothing more than your own mental organization for fulfilling your indescribable faith. The theology itself is not sacred, is not a direct revelation of God, just your grasp of what revelation means to you. It may be quite agreeable to a lot of other folks, so that you are called a theologian, but that does not make your brain and thoughts sacred. Nothing of the Flesh Realm can be inherently sacred, because everything on this plane of existence participates in the Fall.

Female theologians are not a big problem, so long as what they teach reflects the Law Covenants. If they pretend to parse things on a more spiritual plane, they can teach everyone except adult men. Paul says on such matters they will take their cues from those appointed to be spiritual shepherds: pastors, apostles, etc. — all male. It’s not because women aren’t smart enough, it’s because something fundamental in feminine nature. It’s because of something utterly necessary for a woman to be a woman. It’s not a put-down or diminution, but women are a treasure in their own right. Paul spoke for God. You can strive all you like to qualify that downward to a lesser standard, but the reason Paul gave for his church customs was something eternal and revealed from Heaven, and not too hard to grasp from the account of the Fall.

So men griping about feminized church atmosphere, they are hardly thinking of the biblical standard of manhood, but something more a mixture of German and Victorian mythology. That’s actually pining for a pagan and sinful standard of manhood. I would object, too, but on biblical grounds. When our Postmodern Christian women complain it’s not a good idea, I doubt their underlying assumptions are any closer to the biblical standard. Indeed, our current feminist orthodoxy is a doctrine of demons, too. Scripture points out repeatedly we justly criticize men for acting like women, and vice versa, because it represents a rejection of what God requires of us.
Women are accorded honor for doing what women are supposed to do, according to that revealed ancient standard of Scripture. That means first showing a superior understanding of what the Law Covenants point toward, which includes knowing her role as He declared it. If she goes on to exercise good, reliable leadership in such things, we make her an elder. Woman can participate in government of the church, because organizational matters are within their roles. Everybody needs a mother. Spiritual perception is another issue entirely; everybody needs a father. Men will surely fail in this, but it’s their role. In matters of ritual and teaching, men are the appointed actors.

Most debates in Western Christianity today are utterly missing the point.

Update: As you may note in the comments below, my good friend Tim suggests I may have missed Amy’s point. Maybe I do. What I read was a woman’s complaint churchmen were insulting womanhood. She seemed to be disappointed there was a some element of the “battle of the sexes” in church politics, at least in what those men were discussing. She’s half right; they were insulting women. But the entire debate is building on a false foundation. If she wants to appeal to Scripture, she needs to understand the larger implications, not just the Bible as read through Modern Reformed glasses.

I was trying to point out those men were begging for a more manly church from within a whole frame of reference which is wrong to begin with. Thus, Amy’s complaint was also missing the point, too. From where I stand, the difference is not so great between a liberal feminist activist position, which is painfully in-your-face, versus the subtle assumption men aren’t supposed to make it an insult to say some guy is feminine. Women are supposed to be women, and men are supposed to be men. The Bible leaves no doubts about that, going so far as to command the sexes not wear each others’ clothing. But when modern churchmen say such things, they are wrong, but from the biblical point of view, so is Amy. That’s because both of them presume a civilization which is utterly broken in the first place, and any attempt to balance between the feminine and masculine influences is doomed.

Even with relatively conservative American social assumptions, such as perhaps are held by Amy and the men she described, the whole thing is silly, asking the wrong questions, and obviously coming up with the wrong answers. When someone suggests whining is a feminine trait, they are wrong. It’s a sinful trait, and biblical women aren’t supposed to do it, either. Personally, even if I agreed with her presuppositions, I would still find most seminary guys of the Reformed tradition are more feminized than the most of the American male population as whole. Their version of “manhood” is already pretty soft by Western standards.