Whatever happened to desiring moral dominance?
First, a brief lesson in biblical Hebrew expression. The terms “rod” and “staff” are roughly synonymous. When you read the expression — “thy rod and thy staff” — it refers to a single object, but with two different emphases for what it represents: power and authority. Rod is generally a tool and weapon; it can be used to do things. Staff is a symbol of authority, as noted by its other common uses in English. Don’t get caught up in precise descriptions. The thing referenced might be a simple walking stick, or an elaborate symbol of office. It could be just a switch for spanking or an ornate scepter. What matters is the symbolic meaning, not the object itself.
Every shepherd carried a stick. He might have weapons, as well, such as a sling, sword, etc. That stick may well be worked somewhat that it could serve as a javelin, but probably not heavy enough for a battle lance. The idea of power and authority was both protective and punitive. The fundamental image of political authority was always rooted in the image of shepherd. Furthermore, the whole thing falls within the ANE feudal social structure. A shepherd might legally own his sheep, but he would also have feudal obligations that included his sheep. Without a proper appreciation of that setting, you cannot possibly understand the Lordship of Christ.
By comparison, Western concepts of feudalism are a perversion of what God had in mind. Church traditions that fold in medieval cultural symbols are completely wrong, adding to the deception and confusion of our fallen state. Western feudalism is depraved, but Hebrew feudalism is God’s command for humanity. The differences are significant on multiple levels.
So any moral frame of reference that builds on the Western approach is immoral. Not so much in the particulars, but in the basic assumptions. The manosphere and famous/notorious bloggers like Vox Day promote male dominance based on Anglo-Saxon moral assumptions (picking on one of the most popular figures). While I can agree that this is better than the current political dominance of feminist mythology, what no one seems to notice is that it’s all one package. The manosphere only pretends to be logical and unconcerned, but uses a lot of words and expressions that come across as bitter, a bitterness from having lost so much and trying to claw it back with cold force. A Western man cannot be logical without being angry. It requires anger to overcome the fake caring; truly logical and impersonal is utterly impossible for any human. Whatever most manosphere writers mean by “rational and logical” is a chimera of Anglo-Saxon self-deception. The anger and bitterness are in there somewhere, and the rest is arrogant pretension. It is anti-Christian.
And you would be guilty of clinging to the perverted Anglo-Saxon approach if you read my explanation through simplistic assumptions. The ANE shepherd does not pretend he has no anger, but also knows that anger is just one thread of a man’s soul, even as the same soul may act in compassion. He uses anger to feed the same passion as love, because there is no real distinction. Folks like Vox Day are fully capable of tenderness and friendly demeanor, but they write about it like a tool, or as something kept hidden away and private. Gotta be tough with our wicked world, cold and aloof.
Not so with the ANE shepherd. Male dominance is not something we fight for, but we assume God’s favor on certain aspects of male dominance in the nature of things. It’s part of God’s moral character, from which the entire fabric of Creation is woven. It has nothing to do with effectiveness, but righteousness itself. We would rather die right than be effective at the cost of moral compromise. And lest you be a fool, know that pursuing effectiveness is itself a moral compromise. The fallen world of our existence inherently resists God’s will, so our striving for God’s moral justice will put as at odds with humanity, but not with Creation. There is some sloppy interplay between human mortality and cursed nature versus God’s living character at work in Creation. We let God handle the outcomes and look for peaceful conformance with His divine will.
Much of the manosphere’s explanations about feminist solipsism is accurate as far as it goes. But the place they give it, the array of reactions and conscious discussion about it, and the whole tone is essentially drawn from the same Anglo-Saxon mythos that gave birth to both sides of the battle. The manosphere remains a captive of Oester by engaging her in battle. There is nothing redemptive in any of that; the shepherd of God’s sheep is utterly missing. The whole debate remains outside of God’s justice because no one carries His staff. No one brings His authority to bear.
You could apply the same critique to a wide range of other issues that consume bloggers in the West. It’s time to pick up your staff and recognize that this world is not our home and that redemption is pulling people out of themselves and this world of deception, up into an awareness of the Spirit Realm. If you cannot reject the Western ways, you cannot follow Christ. The Cross of Christ is just an extra-heavy version of the shepherd’s staff.
