I found this toothsome little post and was more interested in the comment section than anything. My comments are away at the end of the comment page....
When previously reading the Bayly's blog, I've been struck at how almost all of the comments are from 'preach it, brother!' male-types. The dissenting opinions come about equally from men and women, and it seems the women are usually banned pretty promptly. I am actually going to repost my comments and those of the blog owner:
[I had chimed in about a woman who spoke about against patriarchy, and another commenter promptly said it was nothing more than could be expected from someone who had lived in sin]
>>...patriarchy is not the conclusion that all who seek God finally come to.
Actually, it is. Or rather, patriarchy is The Order God established in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall, and all who believe in the Triune God and submit to His Holy Word reject anarchy and feminism, instead embracing patriarchy with love and joy as an act of worship of our Lord Jesus Christ.
All the church throughout all time has affirmed God's order of patriarchy. Also, all the church throughout all history has found it hard to be obedient to this order, as they also found it difficult to be obedient to it in New Testament times. This is the reason for the commands of Scripture that wives must submit to their husbands and the commands also forbidding woman to teach or exercise authority over man.
Love,
>> Actually, it is.
Really? I'm not sure I know ONE person [in my daily contact with other people] who embraces patriarchy, much less the style you and your supporters claim is God-ordained. But I do know many people who I believe really are seeking God: most of them are equally repulsed by feminism and patriarchy/patriocentricity.
>> All the church throughout all time has affirmed God's order of patriarchy.
The fact or statement that something has been affirmed throughout 'all time' [~2000 years] does not make it valid [or invalid].
I've had several conversations with other Christians about whether the command to submit and not lead is given to wives about their husbands, or to women about all men. [I actually have usually taken the view that where the translation says 'in authority over a man', it does mean MAN and not just husband. People try to tell me that is a wrong translation, and it really means 'man' in the sense of husband. ]
>>Really? I'm not sure I know ONE person [in my daily contact with other people] who embraces patriarchy...
Actually, most people still do embrace patriarchy. You're fooled by their embarrassment to admit it in our wicked day.
As to the "kind" of patriarchy this or that man embraces, there are no kinds at all. Only questions of implementation. And the implementations we at Baylyblog recommend are quite soft and gentle and effeminate compared to those of all of history in all cultures and all religions before our time. Baylyblog is a kinder, gentler patriarchy for our rebellious day.
>>The fact or statement that something has been affirmed throughout 'all time' [~2000 years] does not make it valid [or invalid].
Yes, this is the way modern rebels see it, but it's the very opposite of Christian faith which commands pastors who are always men to "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you" (Timothy 1:13, 14).
Please do not oppose patriarchy again, here, or I will be forced to guard this command and truth of God by denying you future commenting privileges.
Love,
If the command and truth of God is really in danger from my comments, then God is a lot weaker than I've always thought.
I'd love to reply to your other statements, but I think that would lead to this comment not being allowed to remain at all.
[Incidentally, you don't need to worry about denying me commenting privileges, I won't be back. Thank you for allowing me to make the comments that I have.]
I see no reason, from her words, to assume that Nyka was 'living in sin' before her marriage. Shame for assuming that someone whom you disagree with on one point is guilty on another.