Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Are biological fathers or unrelated men more dangerous for children?

This article from the Weekly Standard answers the question.

Excerpt:

A March 1996 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics contains some interesting findings that indicate just how widespread the problem may be. In a nationally representative survey of state prisoners jailed for assaults against or murders of children, fully one-half of respondents reported the victim was a friend, acquaintance, or relative other than offspring. (All but 3 percent of those who committed violent crimes against children were men.) A close relationship between victim and victimizer is also suggested by the fact that three-quarters of all the crimes occurred in either the perpetrator’s home or the victim’s.

A 1994 paper published in the Journal of Comparative Family Studies looked at 32,000 documented cases of child abuse. Of the victims, only 28 percent lived with both biological parents (far fewer than the 68 percent of all children who live with both parents); 44 percent lived with their mother only (as do 25 percent of all children); and 18 percent lived with their mother and an unrelated adult (double the 9 percent of all children who live with their mother and an unrelated adult).

These findings mirror a 1993 British study by the Family Education Trust, which meticulously explored the relationship between family structure and child abuse. Using data on documented cases of abuse in Britain between 1982 and 1988, the report found a high correlation between child abuse and the marital status of the parents.

Specifically, the British study found that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in stable nuclear families. Even when the boyfriend was the children’s biological father, the chances of abuse were twice as high.

These findings are consonant with those published a year earlier by Leslie Margolin of the University of Iowa in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect. Prof. Margolin found that boyfriends were 27 times more likely than natural parents to abuse a child. The next-riskiest group, siblings, were only twice as likely as parents to abuse a child.

More recently, a report by Dr. Michael Stiffman presented at the latest meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in October, studied the 175 Missouri children under the age of 5 who were murdered between 1992 and 1994. It found that the risk of a child’s dying at the hands of an adult living in the child’s own household was eight times higher if the adult was biologically unrelated.

The Heritage Foundation’s Patrick Fagan discovered that the number of child-abuse cases appeared to rise in the 1980s along with the general societal acceptance of cohabitation before, or instead of, marriage. That runs counter to the radical-feminist view, which holds that marriage is an oppressive male institution of which violence is an integral feature. If that were true, then child abuse and domestic violence should have decreased along with the rise in cohabitation.

Heritage also found that in the case of very poor children (those in households earning less than $ 15,000 per year), 75 percent lived in a household where the biological father was absent. And 50 percent of adults with less than a high-school education lived in cohabitation arrangements. “This mix — poverty, lack of education, children, and cohabitation — is an incubator for violence,” Fagan says.

Why, then, do we ignore the problem? Fagan has a theory: “It is extremely politically incorrect to suggest that living together might not be the best living arrangement.”

The moral of the story is that it is a lot safer for children if we promote marriage as a way of attaching mothers and fathers to their children. Fathers who have a biological connection to children are a lot less likely to harm them. And a lot of social problems like child poverty, promiscuity and violence cannot be solved by replacing a father with a check from the government. We need to support fathers by empowering them in their traditional roles. Let the men lead.

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

37 Responses

  1. Mary says:

    Preach it, brother! :)

  2. Mara says:

    I have no argument with children being more likely to be abused by males in the home, not their bio-father.
    Glad for it.

    But does this information make people feel like abuse DOESN’T happen in homes where there are both parents… And a home that calls itself Christian on top of that?

    Sadly, the Christian Church, including Evangelicals has a tendency to be woefully ignorant of the way abuse works. And they have a tendency to give out very bad advice to the abused.

    I hear the John Piper is a very excellent teacher. I don’t know first hand, but it’s what I hear some saying.

    Well, as good a teacher as he is, he’s still a prime example of Christian ignorance concerning abuse.
    His advice could get a woman killed.

    http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.html

    (note, the above blogger also has a series on the abusive woman:

    http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/10/abusive-woman-watch-other-side.html

    So don’t think she is a foaming at the mouth man-hating feminist. She hates abuse of any form. And she hates it when the church and church leaders give out bad advice concerning abuse.)

    • Anon says:

      There’s always exception to the rule. If you’re going to keep arguing about the exception, then you’re going nowhere.

      • Mara says:

        Anon, sweetie.
        It’s a much bigger problem than polite Christians want to deal with.
        Talking about how much worse it is in the world and divorced families doesn’t make it go away.

        Ignoring it rather than acknowledging it makes it worse and produces more feminists who hate men.
        If men want to have and maintain leadership in the church, they need to care about truth and justice and the women and children falling through the cracks.

        Unforturnately these women who are truly abused and are not believed because their husband is an elder or the pastor or a favored economic contributer to the church finally have to flee on their own making themselves outcasts to the church.
        Who else it there to help them but the feminists who will use the pain of these women, ignored by the church, as more fuel for the fire.

        Somewhere in the Bible Paul says that disputes within the church should be settled in the church, not in the secular courts.
        Problem is, in many parts of the church, women are not heard. They are even told to be silent so that they have no voice.
        They are the voiceless.
        Even Christian groups tell women to NOT go to the church, because, again, the church just wants to put a bandaide on a cancer.
        Doesn’t work. In fact it’s making things worse. Making more feminists.

        • Anon says:

          Not sure what you’re talking about there. I was referring to:

          “But does this information make people feel like abuse DOESN’T happen in homes where there are both parents… And a home that calls itself Christian on top of that?”

          I think Christians are not and was never that naive to think abuse doesn’t happen in ‘Christian’ families.

          On top of it, we should also never forget the war on definition. Nowadays, what is the definition of ‘abuse’? In my part of this world, lightly smacking a child in order to correct the child’s behavior has been categorized as abuse. Actually, any force for the purpose of correcting behavior has been made illegal (although our Prime Minister has assured us no good parent will be prosecuted, yeah right).

          On the irony side, abortion is widely accepted. Crazy! Disciplining your child so he/she’s well behave and has bright future is abuse, but aborting that child is OK.

          “Unforturnately these women who are truly abused and are not believed because their husband is an elder or the pastor or a favored economic contributer to the church”

          Well who are these women? And how many are they? Are they minority or majority? Are they the norm or exception?

          We have to be careful because these kind of story of women with abusive Christian husbands is exactly the kind of story that mainstream media has been ramming into our TV/cinema.

          I’m not saying abuse doesn’t happen in Christian homes, but portraying it as something pervasive in Christian homes I believe is misleading.

          • Great comment, Anon. I’ve raised the question of frequency of abuse in different groups before with Mara, and at this point I don’t know what else there is to do.

            I think you made a great point about the word abuse. Nowadays it can mean telling wife she spends too much, or that she has put on too much weight and you don’t like it. It’s verbal abuse. Just like rape now means something entirely different. Cheating on the statistics paints a picture of men that is not fair, and I think it minimizes the real cases of abuse and rape.

            And of course the point about disciplining children with “smacking”. That’s now illegal in New Zealand because somehow it was decided that government is a substitute for parents, especially fathers.

            Not fair.

          • wgbutler777 says:

            Mara seems to enjoy highlighting the bad behavior of certain men in order to justify rejection of certain scriptures in the New Testament that tell wives to submit to their husbands.

            I wonder if she would agree with the flip side of her logic. If I start highlighting the bad behavior of certain women, does that mean it is OK for me to reject the Biblical verses that tell me to love my wife as Christ loves the church?

            wgbutler777

    • Mary says:

      Hi Mara

      Regarding the concerns over John Piper’s teaching, do you have a transcript of what he said? I can’t play the video and would like to hear what he had to say for myself before making a judgment. The blogger you linked to unfortunately doesn’t address what he said clearly and her argument seems to consist largely of histrionics. (I start to twitch when I see Caps Lock abused like that.) Piper may well be in error (he’s a mere human being, after all), but the ad hominem attacks and slander are unconvincing.

  3. Mara says:

    They have a link to a transcript on the original link I posted. But for ease, here the a link here.

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-7071

    Note: I don’t want this to appear as a, ‘kick ‘em while their down’ post.
    Piper has removed himself from ministry for a time to fall back and regroup with his wife and I respect that.
    Also, the fact that these links no longer work is evidence that those who originally put them up realize that they are the wrong answers. This is a step in the right direction. I also appreciate that.

    I used the first link because it is readily available and last I checked the video worked.
    And I only put up Piper’s answer as an example of where the church, at least much of the church, is getting it wrong concerning domestic abuse.
    And the way the church is getting it terribly wrong is producing more feminists who say that God and Church do not have answers for them. When God really does have the answers. The Bible has answers. It’s just getting clogged up in the works of misunderstanding and false assumptions, etc.

    I want religious leaders to educate themselves on the dynamics of abuse and stop giving shallow answers to questions they are not qualified to answer.
    They want to slap a bandaid over an infected wound.

    • Mary says:

      Hi Mara

      Thank you for recognizing that it’s good that John Piper is taking some time out.

      Thanks for the link. On reading it I think that the author of that blog has missed the fact that Piper explicitly mentions that there are many different kinds of abuse. I can see in reading his response that the question is too open and he feels that he doesn’t have enough information about a specific situation to give an accurate answer. There really are different levels of verbal abuse. And I think there is a level at which a woman can and should endure it for a season. (For example, a man might tell his wife in a derisive tone that she’s fat and needs to lose weight. That’s abusive, but not necessarily reason to get up and leave him.) Men will fail from time to time (as will women) and there is room for women to practice grace in marriage. At the same time, there are levels of verbal abuse which are entirely unacceptable and very rightly should not be endured for one second – and that is what the author of the blog is referring to. Response to “abuse” is very dependent on the details.

  4. Mara says:

    Piper: “Now that’s one kind of situation. Just a word on the other kind. If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.”

    The minute a man hits a woman she needs to get the heck out of there. Because if he hits her once, He is more likely to hit her again. And once it starts it can escalate from one smack to a murder/suicide in no time.

    Also this phrase, “If it’s not requiring her to sin but just hurting her…” in the hands of an abuser is just as much gasoline to a fire as any feminist doctrine against fathers.

    Here’s some quotes from a friend. I actually know her name and have her address, but she is going through a very messy divorce and has had to withdraw from internet life except under a pseudonym (Journey).

    Her Christian counselor said that he about never encourages divorce but says in her case he did because of how far her husband had gone off the deep end encouraged along the way by teachings similar to Piper’s.

    Journey:
    “In fact, the very first thing that happened floored me (as we drove away on our honeymoon…that was the first time…I was shocked)…but I was a wife then…and I knew that wives HAD to submit…wives had to do whatever their husbands wanted, because wives were not allowed any personal boundaries.

    When we got back from our honeymoon and he commanded that I give up my car, my tv, my guitar, etc, I complied with only a whimper of protest. I didn’t have the rights to own things anymore. I was a wife now, and my husband was my spiritual authority. HIS vision for how our home would look, for what we would do with our lives, etc, was to be MY vision. This is what I’d learned in Bible School, this is what all the books said, and besides, he wasn’t asking me to sin. Right?

    So later, when my husband gave me lists for what I had to clean to perfection before being allowed to go to bed at night, etc, I submitted because I thought that was what God wanted. In fact, if there was anybody who was in sin, I was positive it was ME for feeling so humiliated at being given these long lists. I thought *my* reaction was what was sinful, not my husband treating me like a child.

    According to the teachings of this camp, the only time a wife has the right to say no to her husband is when he’s asking her to sin. And giving a detailed list of how the kitchen had to be completely sanitized and toothbrush-scrubbed before I could climb the stairs for bed (where he was waiting for me, ready for some action), was not sin. Right?

    My heart would sink to my stomach as I climbed those stairs, finally done with my job, and, get this, again, I was sure (thanks to all the books I’d read) that the problem was ME. I would be so ashamed of myself for MY sin at not being a cheerful and amorous wife.”

    Mara back.
    I’m putting this link in so you can see where it comes from to make sure I’m not making this up.
    There’s an intro by the blog host then a letter from Allison saying that she is happy living the submitted wife life and that there is no abuse. Journey responds to her, saying she’s happy that Allison is happy, but… (read the rest yourself if you care to.)

    http://nolongerquivering.com/2009/05/10/dear-happy-full-quiver-er/

    The problem with Piper’s words is that he has no understanding of what an abuser is really like. He also does not take into account any mental illness that may be plaguing the marriage, on either side, or bad teaching that has laid a faulty foundation, like what my friend Journey was subject to, even in her childhood.
    The problem is that male-headship and making sure a man never feels like he’s the leader of the home is more important to Piper than a woman’s pain. You’ve got to dot the i(s) and cross the t(s) of his favored pet doctrine before you become concerned with pain and emotional well-being of the wife.

    I maintain, Christian leaders, and in fact, Christians in general, are woefully ignorant of the dynamics of abuse and need to stop giving answers until they get educated. All of them. Not just Piper. Like I said. I don’t have it out for him. He is just a good example of a serious problem within the body as a whole.

    • wgbutler777 says:

      Just remember Mara, that abuse is not a male only situation. There are just as many (if not more) abusive, controlling and tyrannical wives as there are husbands.

      The reason why the culture focuses on the abusive husbands more is because women tend to be more vocal and complaining of their situations than do men, and it is politically correct to bash and denigrate men.

      Highlighting bad behavior of some men as a means to justify rejection of the Biblical model of marriage (i.e. husband as leader of the family) is counterproductive to training Christian women how to be good wives. I’m not saying that is your motivation, but you seem awfully consistent in your portrayal of women as victims.

      wgbutler777

      • Mara says:

        WG:”Highlighting bad behavior of some men as a means to justify rejection of the Biblical model of marriage (i.e. husband as leader of the family) is counterproductive to training Christian women how to be good wives.”

        But you see, WG. The actual very loud and vocal bunch in the church is the comp. camp. They preach husband=leader so loud and so strong and so importantly that people think that is what the Bible says. When it doesn’t.

        It encourages husbands to love, like all of us should be loving each other and it encourages wives to submit, like all of us are instructed to submit to one another.
        It is so funny to me how obvious it is that men gloss over Eph 5:21, the foundation for the next verses to the end of the chapter as though it is not there.
        Then they see where the wife is told to submit and ASSUME that means they are to take authority when really ALL they are instructed to do at all, anywhere, in any situation, is to love. How they get LEAD from LOVE is all a bunch of assuming and rewriting of scripture.

        All the while, you all are convinced by the very vocal CBMW and their bunch over this supposes God-given authority, you make assumptions about women being vocal.

        Don’t you know that there are studies that hospital staff don’t take the expressed pain of women as serious as the expressed pain of men.

        Don’t you know that a truely abused woman has no voice at all until she gets out, then she gains her voice, and then, yes, she gets very loud because she knows there are others that are still in the situation that she used to be in.

        But no, you don’t know this. You know that feminists exaggerate abuse claims and that’s good enough to not take it very serious.

        Yes, there are abusive women in the church. And I’m also disgusted when that couple comes for counseling and all the leadership does is tell the husband, “well if you just love her more” when what they need is deep and intensive help.

        The folly I see in the church is the use of Ephesians 5 as the model, cure all, fairy dust to heal marriages.
        I grew up during the golden age of Dobson. With as much influence as he had, you’d think Christian marriages would be healthier. But they aren’t. They are disolving just as fast, if not faster, than the world’s.

        You can blame the failure of marriage in the world on feminist agendas and I’d have to agree.

        But you can’t blame the feminist agenda for the failure of Christian marriages. There has been decades of Ephesian 5 teaching and feminist bashing to solve all those problems if anti-feminism and Ephesians 5 were the actual solutions.

        I had more to say but, lucky you, I’ve clean run out of time.

  5. Mary says:

    Mara, thank you for your response. I do understand your concern. When men abuse the teaching of submission in that manner with regard to their wives, it’s horrible. But it really is an abuse of the teaching, not the teaching itself which is at fault. I’d also like to point out that Piper is suggesting that the very next day after a woman gets smacked she should get out. He is not saying she should stay. But if she storms out straight after he has hit her, he knows he’s in trouble. And if he’s the violent type, he’s going to come after her to stop her and possibly do her more harm in the process. Much better to leave the next day when she’s assumed to have to go out anyway and he’s not expecting it. It’s actually safer for her. Also, I’m not sure how familiar you are with Piper’s teaching in general, but he does stress the man’s responsibility to love his wife. If the man your friend was married to had listened properly, with a heart eager to hear what God has to tell him, to the teaching he heard he would have heard the part directed at him, to love his wife. Piper is here focussing on the woman’s part because he is being asked for advice by a woman.

    These aren’t anyone’s pet doctrines. These are from the Bible. It stands there in black and white. And just because it isn’t comfortable doesn’t mean we can ignore it. We’re to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile (this was in the context of carrying something for an oppressing Roman soldier), etc. None of these things are easy or to be done because they are deserved by the party who receives the action. But God often asks us to treat others better than they deserve – because we have been treated better than we deserve. Does that mean women should be doormats? No, there are limits. But it does mean that sometimes we should behave towards people with a kindness that is irrational from a worldly perspective. Yes, it’s scary. Sometimes that is one of the things that scares me about marriage. I can do my best to select a good man and still end up with someone who turns out to be a jerk. The odds are less if I make the effort, but not zero. And I need to be prepared for that possibility too.

    I have a friend who says that her father is a difficult man to please. He’s not Ivan the Terrible. But he is harsh. He’s certainly not a model husband. It’s hard for her mom. But her mom has stuck it out. And my friend says she notices this. She says it is one of the things that made her become a Christian because she sees how her mom loves and respects her dad even when he doesn’t deserve it and it’s a beautiful thing. This lady is full of the joy of the Lord in difficult circumstances and it draws people to the faith she professes.

  6. Mara says:

    Had another second here.

    I was late on answering you all because of stuff going on at home. Nothing serious, just stuff.

    Also had an internet sadness to deal with.

    Though I get heated sometimes in my response, my bottom line is this.
    If people want to talk about what is hurting marriages, they need to consider it all and not scapegoat one area.

    The internet sadness I have is over a woman who had a blog called, “Because it Matters”. And the point of her blog is that, much abuse within the church is swept under the rug because, as I keep saying, people don’t know how to handle it. But it shouldn’t be. Why? uhm… because it matters.

    Abuse in the church doesn’t seem to matter to far too many.

    Here is a link to the place I linked above talking about this woman, Danni Moss, her passing, and what she went through because her abuse didn’t matter to her church, including the leadership.

    http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2010/06/domestic-violence-within-church.html

    and here is a link to one of her posts concerning the cancer she suffered from and how the abuse aggravated it.

    http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/agreeing-with-curses/

    I want strong marriages too.
    But we must deal with all the enemies.

    -Politcal policy is one enemy. Wintery, you are doing great here.

    -Abuse is another. Not so great, but I understand, that’s not what your focus is. I can only ask so much of this blog.

    -And so is faulty and/or misapplied doctrine. We have a great deal of disagreement over the ‘faulty’ part but can all agree on the misapplied part. At this point, in this comment, I appreciate that level of agreement.

    I fear, that while the Church focuses on those eeeviiilll feminists, they will lose sight of the enemies within.

    And the enemies within may very well be the ones causing the most damage to Christian marriages. Sadly, these internal enemies can continue to do so all the while the church acts like it doesn’t matter.

    It is serious. Blogs of abused Christian women are popping up all over and are well visited.
    I generally only visit the ones that have retained their faith. I can’t handle very much of the blogs where they have abandoned their faith altogether. They are far too angry, anti-God, and anti-man. I have other Christian friends who go to those places to try to draw a few of those broken women back to the faith.

    (Now going to see if I can find that study I mentioned about hospitals not taking the expressed pain of women seriously. I know how you like proof, Wintery.)

    • Anon says:

      “Abuse in the church doesn’t seem to matter to far too many.”

      A lot of other things do not matter to far too many either.

  7. wgbutler777 says:

    Mara,

    Thanks for your latest post. My response follows:

    //They preach husband=leader so loud and so strong and so importantly that people think that is what the Bible says. When it doesn’t.//

    From my experience, the loud and vocal ones are the usually the people denying this teaching in the Bible, which is actually quite clear on this issue.

    Genesis 3

    [16] To the woman He said:
    “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
    In pain you shall bring forth children;
    Your desire shall be for your husband,
    And he shall rule over you.”

    Ephesians 5

    [22] Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.[23] For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.[24] Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

    Colossians 3

    [18] Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    I Timothy 2

    [12] And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve.[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

    I Timothy 3

    [1] This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work.[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;[3] not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,* but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;[4] one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence[5] (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);

    [11] Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.[12] Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

    I Peter 3

    [1] Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,[2] when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.[3] Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel—[4] rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.[5] For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands,[6] as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

    [7] Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

    In fact, the influence of children and women in society is described by God as a curse in Isaiah 3

    [12]As for My people, children are their oppressors,
    And women rule over them.
    O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err,
    And destroy the way of your paths.”

    We even see this fulfilled in modern times as young adults and women generally vote for the liberal democratic candidates and men tend to vote for the conservative candidate in modern elections.

    //How they get LEAD from LOVE is all a bunch of assuming and rewriting of scripture.//

    The scriptures I copied above are pretty crystal clear. There isn’t any wiggle room here. If you are unable to see the plain meaning it is because you are unwilling to submit this part of your life to God.

    The rest of your post is kind of meandering and I’m not really sure what it is you are trying to get at. No one is saying that there aren’t abused women or tyrannical husbands. But highlighting examples of abusive husbands doesn’t nullify the Biblical teaching.

    If a woman is being physically beaten she should take the children and go somewhere safe. If a man is being physically beaten HE should take the children and leave. That’s completely irrelevant to the fact that God has ordained that the husband be the leader of the home.

    wgbutler777

  8. Mary says:

    wgbutler777, I agree that the man has a God-given role of leadership to fulfill. I would just like to point out that the first of your chosen scripture passages is not a good illustration of leadership. The Genesis quote you used refers to the result of the Fall: disharmony and ungodly power struggles between husband and wife. Leadership, on the other hand, is not a curse. It’s good and part of God’s pre-Fall created order. If you want to look at leadership by design, the 1 Timothy 2 quote which you mentioned is a good one.

    Moreover, your statement that “the influence of children and women in society is described by God as a curse in Isaiah 3″ is blatantly untrue and very anti-women and anti-child. It’s not the influence of women and children that is the curse but the lack of leadership from men in Israel at the time that is the curse and the corruption of women and children. I do hope you didn’t mean to be as negative towards women and children as it came across.

    I’d now like to address Mara’s concerns regarding the command to love and the role of leadership. I would argue that the role of leadership is actually a key role in which a man can express his love for his wife. Remember that our model of leadership is not worldly domination (Jesus explicitly condemns this), but godly servant leadership, as preached and modeled by Christ Himself. Leadership done well is a great responsibility and privilege conferred on men. Let’s encourage them and help them by fostering a godly model of loving servant leadership.

  9. wgbutler777 says:

    Mary,

    Thanks for your reply. My response follows:

    //
    The Genesis quote you used refers to the result of the Fall: disharmony and ungodly power struggles between husband and wife.
    //

    I agree with you that the Genesis verse doesn’t really go with the other verses I quoted.

    Clearly God was assessing the situation and describing the new reality, that women would try to control men and men would dominate women from that point forward, since mankind would now be living apart from God’s will.

    As was referenced in the other verse that you mentioned, God clearly meant for the man to be the leader of the family which is why He created Adam first. When Adam and Eve sinned that started a power struggle between the sexes (with women trying to control men and women being dominated by men) that continues to this day. The advent of feminism is merely the latest salvo in this ongoing battle.

    //
    Moreover, your statement that “the influence of children and women in society is described by God as a curse in Isaiah 3″ is blatantly untrue and very anti-women and anti-child
    //

    It’s only anti-woman and anti-child if you think that women and children should be the leaders of a society. I’m not against women or children and think they are every bit as valuable as men. But men and women were designed for different purposes and most children don’t have the wisdom to be the leaders of a nation.

    When we see nations give a great deal of decision making power to women, by and large these nations end up becoming socialistic and feminist.

    I know its politically incorrect to say this, but women’s suffrage always leads to big government and socialism. I guess that because many women are so darn obsessed with security. This makes women great mothers and wives, but very poor voters! Check out this link for more information:

    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

    Also, its pretty well established that most college age voters go overwhelmingly for the big government socialistic candidate as well. So the curse of Isaiah 3 would seem to apply to our modern times.

    I pretty much agree with everything you said, including about the servant leadership. I realize that I probably came across as overly harsh to Mara, but it starts to get old hearing her belittle evangelical Christians who believe that the man is the leader of the home.

    wgbutler777

    • Mary says:

      Thank you for explaining yourself, wgbutler777. We are in agreement. :)

    • McSpinster says:

      Hey, WG:

      Are you claiming that God literally created Adam? Or that he did it figuratively?

      • Mary says:

        McSpinster: What do you mean by creating “figuratively”?

      • wgbutler777 says:

        McSpinster,

        I believe that God literally created Adam and Eve.

        wgbutler777

        • McSpinster says:

          So you believe that Adam and Eve were real people and not characters in an allegory?

          What about the talking snake? Also real?

          • wgbutler777 says:

            McSpinster,

            Yes, I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, and not characters in an allegory.

            If Adam and Eve were merely allegorical inventions that would completely destroy the theology of the New Testament and the credibility of Jesus.

            For example, in talking about marriage Jesus said that

            Matthew 19

            3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

            Obviously, if Adam and Eve were merely an allegorical story, then Jesus must have been ignorant of that when He used the creation of Adam and Eve to teach about marriage.

            Also, Paul teaches in Romans 5 that

            12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

            I also believe that there was a literal snake that Satan was either controlling or appearing in the form of. There is a similar story when an angel caused a donkey to talk to Balaam in Numbers 22.

            So to read the story of Adam and Eve as a fable that is merely trying to teach some kind of moral would be to reject the authenticity of the Bible as divine revelation and instead see it as something similar to Aesop’s fables.

            As a Christian, I draw my source of knowledge and revelation from the scriptures. If I saw it as simply another version of Aesop’s fables, I would not want to waste any time with it.

            wgbutler777

  10. Mara says:

    So sorry I have not been able to read, much less, engage the arguments here. I’m an involved mother and softball season has begun with a vengence.
    But I found this video again, after loosing track of it, and I feel it explains some of my concerns better than me.
    It is sympathetic to both male and female and our changing times. The man in it is all ‘man’ but is gentle and humble in heart, like Christ. And like some of the men I’ve engaged here.

    Anyway here is the link.
    If you never go to anything I link, that’s fine. But this one, out of all of them, is the best I have to offer.
    No anger, no frustration, just good common sense that comp and egal alike can understand and, hopefully, agree on.

    http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1108316668554&ref=mf

    • Mary says:

      Thanks, Mara. I don’t suppose you have a transcript? I can’t access videos online. :-P

    • wgbutler777 says:

      I saw the video. Thanks for the link. By and large, I agree with the guy’s analysis of what was changed over the past 100 years.

      One area where I might disagree with him is where he (correctly) stated that 2/3 of all divorces were filed by women but then implied that these women were somehow justified with their decisions to divorce because the men weren’t loving them well enough.

      I think divorce is almost always a selfish decision that is made because the person divorcing loves themselves more than they love God. This is especially so in situations where children are involved. The decision to divorce deprives the children of access to both parents, which is critical for normal childhood development.

      So its a sad thing that divorce is now so easily available to women. They are clearly using it, since the state empowers them to continue to receive financial resources from the men they were married to via the child support and alimony process. Its kind of hypocritical and selfish to supposedly cut all ties with the husband but still insist on being financially supported by said husband. And this has created a generation of fatherless children which will inflict unimaginable harm to society.

      Anyway, I hope I didn’t put words in the guys mouth, but it seemed like he was thinking that the freedom women have to divorce was kind of a good thing. Praise God that I found a wife who fears God and wants to live a life that is obedient and pleasing to Him.

      • WG, I agree with your view completely. This is not necessarily a problem where the bulk of women are to blame. The government has been influenced by feminism and it is not providing incentives to women to break up their own marriages. The ease of getting out of a marriage, and the growing number of social workers and welfare programs, means that women don’t have to be as careful as they used to be in choosing a mate who will protect and provide for them. I think that the bulk of women who vote for bigger and bigger government are hoping to insulate themselves from the duty of choosing wisely. They don’t realize that they are causing the shortage of men who can protect and provide for them with the skyrocketing taxes and the threat of the intrusive, controlling state. Going to divorce court is a huge violation of a man’s freedom and sovereignty that can possibly happen. No wonder men are opting out.

  11. McSpinster says:

    Sarah Palin recently disclosed in an interview that she is a “lifelong feminist.” Meg Whitman (who I grew up with) and Carly Fiorina are also in that camp. So can we please stop referring to feminism as destroying the family? These three are a product of feminist achievement. It would be nice if someone from the right other than Ross Douthat of the New York Times, actually acknowledged that.

    ALso, Wintery, it is not easy to get out of a marriage. And most women getting out of marriages do not go on welfare. Thanks to feminism and their own hard work, they have degrees, jobs and their own money. No one handed it to them. They worked for it, same as men.

    Is a dependent woman more likely to stay in a marriage she’d otherwise leave? Perhaps. Is this the state of things you’d like to bring back? I’m really curious. You mention it all the time like it’s some kind of ideal. And it’s not. There is no ideal, except the one you make for yourself.

    Why not just focus on that? If a good marriage is what God intends you to have, he will show you the way. And no amount of evil government, and taxes and the female population of the US will be able to stop you.

  12. Mara says:

    Disclaimer.
    Elsewhere Wintery has accused me of believing that bio fathers are as dangerous or more dangerous to their children than step fathers. I was too busy to respond at that time.
    I want to assure all that I believe that, in most cases, it is better to keep the bio father involved in the lives of their children. First choice, by keeping the marriage together. Second, if divorce is unavoidable, contact should be maintained. If I end up divorced through the choices of my spouse, I WOULD NOT use separating my children from him as a punishment. He is still their father and has many good qualities.

    Now, having got that out of the way, I’m just giving an example of a bio father, being charged with the murder of his 2 year old son.

    http://www.myconsolidated.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9GRDB9G0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL1_UNEWS

    It goes both ways. There are bio mothers who have also killed their children.

    My concern is for the children. Bio is first choice. But there are always those parents, who, even though they have the plumbing to make babies, they simply are not qualified to parent.

  13. [...] Rod Dreher had a great post about it, but it’s 404′d now. Some of it is preserved here: “Specifically, the British study found that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 [...]

  14. [...] The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own. [...]

  15. […] The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own. […]

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

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,495,456 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,140 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: