Headship Authority Takes Work

The responsibilities of Patriarchal Headship are not a walk in the park as we might like to believe.

Readership: All
Theme: Masculine Authority and Responsibility
Author’s Note: This post is based on a conversation between Jack, Oscar, Red Pill Apostle, et al.  Links to the original comments are contained in the initial words.
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

A Vacuum of Understanding about Patriarchy

Western men have been without real patriarchal authority for so long, that most people don’t even know what it is or what it looks like.

But whatever it is, the NPC commoners are grandstanding that it’s baaad, simply because MGM, trend setters, and culture shapers say so.

Regular readers already know the popular narrative’s concept of “The Patriarchy” is a putridly biased caricature that hardly resembles the real thing.  But the Manosphere’s idealizations of Male Headship are also rather naïve and half baked.

In lieu of this vacuum of understanding, most people will buy into the Feminist concept of “The Patriarchy”, which is limited to a set of things they dislike about men, male authority, and traditional gender roles. You see, Feminism is not a rebellion against patriarchy per se, but against authority (and ultimately against God). Feminists need to affix blame on a scapegoat to gain social traction, and they can’t blame authority, because that would reveal their hand. So “The Patriarchy” has become the abstracted straw man.

To further our understanding of how Patriarchy works in practice, this post delves into five theoretical case studies and raises several questions surrounding Patriarchy that have been scantly addressed.

Case Study 1 – Tennant and Foster’s Hypothetical Example of a Lawless Wife

One post in the series on Faux-Masculinity, The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet (2022-5-4) reviewed trimmings of a newsletter from Bnonn Tennant and Michael Foster and described how Complementarians renounce their masculine authority by philosophically handcuffing their consciences to a broken system.

In this newsletter Tennant and Foster illustrated a hypothetical example of a naughty wife who breaks the law, and ratiocinated that if the husband interceded for his wife in this matter, then that would be “hyper-patriarchy”, which was insinuated to be a bad thing.  Their implied conclusion is that the husband shouldn’t try to interfere in matters like this, and if he does, then this would be “toxic patriarchy”.

They offered a counterargument to illustrate what Doug Wilson might call a “nicely balanced patriarchy”, whereby stating that a wife who breaks the law must answer to the law for her crime, not to her husband, and that it is the responsibility of the law to hold her accountable, not her husband. “Nicely balanced” means that the sock puppet husband can still be a little bit lazy, and the headstrong wife can still be a little bit dominant, and they can still have an inverted codependent relationship while also having the psychological satisfaction of thinking that they have a Christian relationship. Tennant and Foster assumed that this is Biblical, or “theologically correct”, or whatever, and that this is how things should work.

In Tennant and Foster’s example, we aren’t given the exact nature of the law the wife broke.  One’s initial thought is that the wife has committed a crime worthy of jail time, which muddies the waters of the point some, since while the husband does still have authority, she’s going to be subject to incarceration to pay her debt.

But what if the example of the wife breaking the law was in the form of a simple traffic violation?  Say she’s caught speeding a few times, or better yet, violating “texting and driving” laws because those minivan selfies with all the car seats in the back elicit all sorts of “What a great mom!” comments that women love on social media. In such a case, now the civil penalty is monetary. Here the application of patriarchal authority is much clearer. It’s up to her husband to reign in her behavior to prevent her from further violations. He gets to do this any way he sees fit without violating the guidelines God gives husbands in the bible.

Basically, Tennant and Foster have either not thought scripture well, which is bad enough, or have thought through scripture, know what it says, and are intentionally misguiding people, which is evil. Either way, they shouldn’t be teaching on the topic of marriage.

In reality, Tennant and Foster don’t know what patriarchy is any more than Feminists do, or most men for that matter.

Applying Biblical Patriarchy

Oscar asked,

“What do you think is the theologically correct way to handle that?”

I think the theologically correct way to handle this is to simply state that, yes, this is how it is in the current day, but it’s not necessarily Biblically based Patriarchy, as Tennant and Foster claim.

In contrast to Tennant and Foster’s claims, when we consider the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy (based on Ephesians 5:22-33) in light of John 10:10-18 and Galatians 2:19-21, we reach the conclusion that a husband should intercede for his wife in such cases, just as Christ interceded for the believer’s sins through His work at Calvary.

So how should this be done?

The NT recognizes the authority of governments (Romans 13:1), but Jesus said it is better to work out your problems with others so that you don’t have to turn to those authorities (Matthew 5:24-26), which is a hat tip to how things were done in the OT. Again, this goes back to the authority of the husband, as the wife would not be in a position or a state of mind to successfully negotiate her own transgression.

Based on accounts in the OT, the patriarch of the offending party should meet with the patriarch of the offended party and hash out some way to handle the situation together, whether that be tribute, or an indemnity, or punishment, or whatever.

The Modern Application

In a modern context, this would mean the husband should handle the situation and work out the solution. But this has problems in the modern day application.

  1. The modern nuclear family doesn’t have this kind of social and financial power.
  2. This assumes that the wife and family are more or less obedient to the husband’s decisions.
  3. It opens the door to a multitude of methods for enforcing punishment.  A man could be punished for the transgressions of his wife.
  4. This suggests that if the husband continues to fail to restrain his irresponsible wife, then the government should also punish him for his failure to do so.
  5. All of the above implications would certainly be an incentive to men to execute their authority, but I’m not sure if it would be an incentive to women to submit — not as long as women are predominantly favored over men by the social and legal system.
  6. It would be an incentive for ill willed wives to misbehave even more, just to enjoy the schadenfreud of seeing their husbands punished.

So you see, Tennant and Foster aren’t the only ones who haven’t thought through the Biblical foundations and the logical conclusions of their positions. Most men have no clue what they’re asking for when they demand Patriarchal authority and responsibility.

Of course, Tennant and Foster won’t say any of this, because not only would they offend wives by asking them to submit, they would also offend husbands by asking them to assume the authority necessary to clean up the wife’s messes. Their ethics won’t allow them to offend anyone’s postmodern sensibilities. So instead, they’re urging husbands to open the door to let the gynogroveling church and state do whatever they like (per Romans 13:1), and then mediate the mess with limited authority.

And, they’re saying this is theologically correct Headship!

Case Study 2 – Being a Hapless Accomplice

Here’s another thought experiment that might shed some more light in the discussion.

Suppose you just met a guy and you were hanging out.  He seems kind of shifty, but he’s got a lot of charisma and is rather likeable. You overlook this for the time being because you just met and you’re still getting to know him.  The second time you go to hang out with him, you’re driving the car. You stop at a convenience store to grab some drinks. While you’re in the convenience store, this guy pulls out a gun and robs the storeowner. You look on in shock and dismay. After the robbery, he tells you to drive. You look at him in disbelief, and he waves his gun at you. You feel like you have no choice but to be the get-away driver.

Later on, the law catches up to you. You tell them you didn’t know he was going to rob the store, and that he forced you to be an unwitting accomplice, but all the evidence is stacked against you, including his testimony.

The typical Protestant’s response is to assume God is working something great and mysterious in your life and pray for God’s will to be done in this situation. If that means going to jail (taken to be an unjust form of “persecution”), then so be it.

How would a true patriarch handle this situation?

Case Study 3 – Being a Hapless Husband

Now, let’s suppose a similar scenario happens, except the perpetrator is your wife who’s been embezzling money from her employer ever since before you got married.  (Let’s assume you’ve been married for one year.)

Tennant and Foster’s response is to turn your wife into the authorities, play dumb, and pray for the best.

How would a true patriarch handle it?

Case Study 4 – A true example of Patriarchy: Chinese Filial Piety

I am rather familiar with patriarchy in Chinese culture, also known as Filial Piety in the West. Most men are hardworking, successful, and respectable. The women are feminine, respectful, and content. Families are a source of security and financial stability. People know what’s wrong and what’s right. Society is well ordered. Social capital is high. Sure, there are some problems, but overall, it’s quite nice. This is partly why the Chinese stay within small enclave communities in the West — because the outside culture is a gynocentric mess!

Case Study 5 — A true example of Patriarchy: The Godfather

Most readers are familiar with The Godfather. Although the Italian mob is certainly not Christian, it is a real life, working example of a patriarchal social structure.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Boundaries, China, Complementarianism, Counterfeit/False Paradigms, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Government, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Personal Domain, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, Stewardship, Taiwan, The Power of God, Trust. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Headship Authority Takes Work

  1. Red Pill Apostle says:


    The answer to your questions about how a patriarch would handle certain situations actually starts with mindset, and that mindset is highly offensive to modern sensibilities. It’s part of what men used to express in male only spaces, but now is what we must think but not say out loud, but I’m feeling good because it’s Friday stateside, so here it goes … in writing.

    Every husband needs to understand that in order to do his job as a husband he must think of his wife as the most responsible teenager in the household. When a husband thinks of his wife as his equal in authority bad outcomes abound, very similar to when a child is treated like an equal instead of setting boundaries for them and holding them to the standards you set.

    Your traffic violation hypothetical is close to reality for me, except instead of violations the issue is accidents. Mrs. Apostle has had an accident in every car she’s ever had over the past 25 years and has even wrecked 2 of mine. In total she’s been involved in 8 accidents, 3 of which totaled vehicles, 2 others came very very close to being total losses and has resulted in over 100k in liability because 2 of the other drivers were injured.

    So what was I to do with my wife’s abysmal driving? To start, we had a month-long argument 2 years ago over who was going to be the driver of the more expensive car. I held my ground and used the insurance money from her wreck to get myself the newer vehicle and gave her the older one I’d been driving, which she then wrecked. We lucked out and found a well maintained 10 year old Toyota for her for under $10k. That’s the limit I’m willing to risk on her driving and I’ve placed strict limits on phone use and other areas of driving that she needs to improve on. Her main issues are focus and attention, which is what I’ve tried to make her correct.

    Time will tell if she complies, but if she messes up again she’ll be in a purely functional junker that we can send to the scrap yard if anything goes wrong. The other implications are that she is working extra cases to cover the increased insurance costs and she is not allowed to drive my Tundra or Land Cruiser.

    My wife is a middle aged woman with 2 graduate degrees who finished with a 4.0 GPA. She is highly capable of focus and attention to detail when she chooses to put her mind to a task. She merely has to feel like attentive driving is very important to her, which, based on her history, means it is up to me to make her feel that attentive driving is important. Hence, my mindset that she’s the most responsible teenager in my household. Thinking otherwise puts my family at risk.

    (There are other quite applicable examples of how this mindset applies, but the driving is the easiest example to give.)

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      The mindset is one of husband being the “responsible” one, setting boundaries, and then holding to them. If the husband has made a decision and set a boundary, then he needs to keep to them.

      Not to steal RPA’s thunder, so I’m going to put this under here.

      Mrs. deti is a capable, efficient, hard worker who can think rationally when she wants to. Her one area of irresponsibility is her emotions. She is highly emotionally overreactive. Her negative emotions run out of control. She can be overcome with fear, anger, rage, or despair. She has routinely injured her relationships with others with her emotional overreactions, worst of all me.

      When this is pointed out to her, she does better. But this is one of her weaknesses and faults. This is one area she struggles in. The only things that seem to improve it are her constant mindfulness and being reminded by me of boundaries I’ve set for her in her treatment of me and our son. Those boundaries have to be constantly manned and defended.

      Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “The mindset is one of husband being the “responsible” one, setting boundaries, and then holding to them. If the husband has made a decision and set a boundary, then he needs to keep to them.”

        Not to steal deti’s thunder, Mrs. Boomer’s area is spending money, not in a reckless spendthrift way, but in a “Hubby’s got the budget, not my area of responsibility” kind of way. When she goes out of town for an errand or two, it seems she can’t just make one or two stops to get stuff, but three or four. And when she has her 78 year old, dementia addled mother that lives with us, it seems to always have to include a food stop along the way. We recently got a puppy, so extra stops to get stuff for the pup, are the “errands du jour.”

        She knows I’m on top of the budget, and that I’ll “figure it all out,” but try as I may, I haven’t been able to get her to be more aware exactly WHAT the effect is on our budget. For example, last month I budgeted $500 for the pets, because we had vet expenses. When all was said and done for the month, we’d spent $800 on the pets. The extra three hundred had to be shifted from another area of the budget, or come out of savings. Fortunately, I had no car maintenance in July, so that line item on the budget compensated for the pet’s over spending.

        I’m not super complaining here because I’m sure some guys have wives who MINDLESSLY spend money, i.e. with no relation to the family budget at all, aka budget busters; my wife just seems to think, “We need this, or the pup needs this”, so hubby over there will just have to figure it out.

        She used to do this with her spending money line item in the budget, however after about two or three months of me, the Patriarch, showing her proof that she busted her spending money budget every single month, she finally got that under control. The point is, I had to show her this until she finally got it; got it like in, “Oh yeah, I see it now. Okay, I’ll watch it closely.” She did for about six months, then I noticed it starting to creep back in, so back on went my Patriarchal hat and she’s reigning it back in, but not at first without a bit of a snarky attitude about it. I gave her the old “Patriarchal stare” when she snarked at me, and she got the message.

        Here’s the thing gents, my wife’s not real bad about her spending, she’s actually, from the stories I’ve heard other men tell, fairly mild with her spending habits… BUT she’s still a female, and it’s my job, as that d@mmed, ass-holish Patriarch to reign her in on it, for the good of our family. She benefits too when the monthly budget is adhered to. When we come in under budget for the month, it’s extra money for savings, or something that we/she may want to get.

        Just as a final aside, I help people with their personal or family budgets because I’m pretty good at it. I’m just starting to help a guy on my men’s team who has problems with his family’s monthly budget making ends meet. In our first meeting, I asked him, “Who handles the family budget?” Do I even have to tell you what the answer was to that question? LOL! His wife of course! He makes the money (her too, both have jobs), and she handles all of it. He doesn’t even see his family budget because, “Mama’s got it.” Step one buddy, time to get your “Patriarchal hat” out of storage and get back in the family budget game, besides just handing over the moolah to mama to manage.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        “BUT she’s still a female, and it’s my job, as that d@mmed, ass-holish Patriarch to reign her in on it, for the good of our family. She benefits too when the monthly budget is adhered to.”

        Based on what you wrote about Mrs. Boomer’s spending habits, the envelop system might be helpful. Not everyone can keep track of spending with plastic, in fact, only the most disciplined people can. Behaviorally, it is too easy to see and want when the cost is the swipe of a piece of plastic. The cost of items is much more tangible when pieces of paper are handed over.

        Liked by 2 people

    • locustsplease says:

      Sounds like she may b the oldest not most responsible teenager! I know 2 guys their wives in endless car wrecks literally pull in garage and go too far and smack home foundation hard! Ding bumper every year. They just don’t have the motor skills men have I think most have just enough to drive their vehicle and that’s it any more and they would fail. I have a cdl and drove with 4 women in 10 years 2 flipped trucks!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. catacombresident says:

    Imagine a society where men are true biblical patriarchs. It would look just like a lot of non-assimilating folks who migrate to America from other places where patriarchy is the norm. We have it bad here. If you don’t start with patriarchy, it’s a whale of a lot of work over years getting it installed in the household operation.

    I thought I had it bad enough with my wife, but everyone else’s stories make me feel highly privileged, so I have no horror stories to share. I’m not a case study of things getting fixed because I started with patriarchy before our wedding. I’ve always been a complete alien. And I’ve invested a lot of time over the years explaining it to others who saw how well it worked for me.

    The key is to willingly become a social outcast.

    Liked by 4 people

    • elspeth says:

      Our experience has been that men, rather than treat him as an outcast, generally admire the husband whose wife is well behaved, while women look at the wife as the one to be pitied.

      When questioned by Christian women, and sometimes I am questioned, responding with Scripture generally elicits a more tempered reaction. I also –when appropriate– make it clear that a dominant husband (not to be confused with a domineering one, as they are often erroneously conflated) is also a more alluring husband. The more they get to know my husband, the more they see us as an awesome couple worthy to be emulated, even if they can’t bring themselves to do it.

      The matter really comes down to how the wife responds. I think of how Tom Buck (doesn’t matter what you think of his theology, though I have no qualms) is suffering right now because his wife decided that she would share her story of surviving his emotional “abuse” in the early years of their marriage, which culminated with it escalating to physical abuse against her by him popping her on the wrist — once. Only time he ever touched her that way, in a sort of reprimand when she was trying to pick up a soda or something, I can’t recall, but it made her fear for her life, LOL.

      They seem to be standing strong together and loving each other and all that. Well and good.

      But now they want to blame the SBC for the fact that they are being “persecuted”. No. It was Jennifer who has brought this upon her marriage, and the denomination as a whole because she decided that she had to show everyone how she survived such horrid abuse as being yelled at, even though it rarely even happens anymore.

      My point being that whether or not the dominant man is seen in a negative lens is often tied to how the wife speaks of him and about their marriage.

      Liked by 4 people

      • bee123456 says:

        Full Metal Patriarchy (Prince Asbel) has more information on the Jennifer Buck story about her husband Tom Buck. It is a messy situation, exacerbated by Tom and Jennifer trying to make the message into a book.



        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        @ Bee123456:

        I heartily agree that Jennifer Buck’s eagerness to reveal her husband’s sin to the world as a work of ministry was the cause of all this. I read Full Metal Patriarch’s post and I agree with a large swath of it.

        I do want to add this, though, since my husband came into our marriage as a young man with a whole lot of anger simmering beneath the surface which sometimes seemed to be directed at me without cause (no physical abuse). He acknowledges to this day that he has battled that since his boyhood and that it is the thing he most stays before the Lord to combat.

        Now… to be fair, I certainly learned to recognize that there were times and situations when I provoked him either through disobedience, willful attempts at manipulation, or sometimes setting wrong priorities. When that happened, I learned to repent and acknowledge my role in the friction or confrontation that resulted.

        This is not excuse Jennifer Buck, because I don’t think she should have done what she did (even though I know Tom allowed it). But there are times when a husband is angry that have nothing to do with his wife, just as there are times when a husband is unfaithful through no fault of his wife, or other such things. Sometimes people just sin, unprovoked, because we are sinners and without carefully guarding our flesh, it will take us places God would not have us go.

        Once I learned to be a more godly wife who did what my husband asked (when he asked it, which my real issue), to make his priorities my priorities, and to stop trying to run game on him that didn’t work anyway, he was able to see his need for change and repentance much more clearly.

        We are a walking illustration of 1 Peter 3 in action. At least in that regard.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “I certainly learned to recognize that there were times and situations when I provoked him either through disobedience, willful attempts at manipulation, or sometimes setting wrong priorities. When that happened, I learned to repent and acknowledge my role in the friction or confrontation that resulted.”

        This is a nice summary of three ways a wife can make herself into a bad wife. I’ll add three more: complaining, nagging, and negativity.

        Too many wives think that if they continue to perform in a utilitarian function (dressing well, making a good impression in public, cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, etc.) then they can tell themselves that they’re a good wife. But husbands can see through this facade, and it’s annoying because we know wives don’t do all this out of love for husband nor obedience to God. They do it to comfort themselves, stroke their self-esteem, virtue signal to others, exercise control over the family, and get a little positive attention.

        To put the shoe on the other foot, it would be like husbands thinking they’re a good husband simply because they go to work every morning.


      • info says:


        There are those who recount similar accounts in how you changed your behavior helping your husband to repent. But those Husbands being “Narcissists” never repented or saw their own faults.

        What’s your thoughts on this phenomenon of “Narcissistic abuse” that is all the rage in purported Christian circles. Is it a valid phenomenon?

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        @ info:

        In general, I think we have -for the past 40 years- worked overtime to breed narcissists, LOL. But in specific to your query, I would say that the vast majority of this whole “narcissistic abuse” stuff being directed at husbands- and rarely if ever towards wives- undercuts its validity.

        I’m not saying that it isn’t real. We are actually very intimately acquainted with a couple where the husband would probably be a textbook case of what it looks like when a man subjects his wife (really his whole family) to “narcissistic abuse”. He literally seems utterly incapable of seeing anyone’s needs but his own. Even when he manages to do the right thing, he does it from the perspective of how it makes him feel that he did it. It’s painful.

        But that phenomena -seeing everything through the lens of what it does for you, even indirectly, is a trait more often exhibited by wives than husbands. Even my husband, who has a very strong and healthy sense of masculinity, of who he is, and what he brings to the table (as well as what he won;t put up with), is always thinking about his family first, and me in particular. Being a good husband is very important to him, and his motives are pure.

        The problem is that in our culture, that strong, healthy sense of masculinity, accompanied by boundaries and expectations of a wife and family, is mostly viewed as “abuse”. I suspect that a lot of what Christians are calling male “narcissistic abuse” is really just a husband refusing to show his belly like a good “servant leader”. Too much leader, not enough servant.

        But yeah, it’s a valid phenomenon. I just don’t think it’s being properly applied. From where I sit, wives seem to have far more of an issue with this than husbands. But because men’s anger is often expressed overtly, and women’s covertly and passive-aggressively (the preferred combat style of our feminized culture), any man who dares speak freely is an abuser and a narcissist.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Our experience has been that men, rather than treat him as an outcast, generally admire the husband whose wife is well behaved, while women look at the wife as the one to be pitied.”

        Yes. Women often take aside an obviously submissive wife and query her. “Are you OK? Is he abusing you? You know, if you ever need any help, we’re here for you. He doesn’t have a right to treat you that way.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        “Yes. women often take aside an obviously submissive wife and query her. “Are you OK? Is he abusing you? You know, if you ever need any help, we’re here for you. He doesn’t have a right to treat you that way.”

        I’ve never had that, thankfully. I think they know they better not even because I respect my man and I will NOT tolerate that.

        What I’ve experienced is more along the lines of, “Oh, no. I would never allow [John] to have that kind of control over me. He’s not Jesus.” Or…

        “Husbands are called to be servant leaders, sacrificial, yada yada yada…”

        Which is humorous to me because their husbands are no more sacrificial than mine. He’s just not willing to sacrifice what is right on the altar of a false peace propped up by my emotions.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth —

        “What I’ve experienced is more along the lines of, “Oh, no. I would never allow [John] to have that kind of control over me. He’s not Jesus.” Or…

        “Husbands are called to be servant leaders, sacrificial, yada yada yada…”

        This is an open invitation to find out if you are “OK” being under subjugation to such a brutish man. This is a test of your mettle, much like a woman fitness tests a guy. If you cracked even a little in your resolve, the typical modern Christian woman would be all up in your business about how you shouldn’t take (fill in the blank) from SAM because that’s (evil patriarchy, misogyny, emotional abuse, misinterpretation of the bible, take your pick of feminist labels).

        thedeti’s comment is the male version that cuts to the chase but y’all are basically saying the same thing, with your thoughts on the topic taking a more passive approach.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I don’t crack. I double down. Confidently, and with full conviction.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Pingback: Headship is an extension of the life you built when single | Christianity and masculinity

  4. Derek Ramsey says:

    The OP was published just before Bruce Charlton’s related post: “New metaphysical assumptions needed; because “Patriarchy” cannot/ should-not be ‘restored’.” He opens…

    “It can easily be shown that – overall – the world was a more coherent place, with better values, under the system now termed ‘patriarchy’ than under the current official-bureaucratic-media System of ‘feminism’. “

    …and then argues that we cannot restore Patriarchy…

    “From where we actually are, therefore, any kind of ‘restoration’ is impossible – including restoration of Patriarchy. We are not what we were, cannot want we wanted (as a whole, as the package it was), cannot become what we were by asking. And, therefore as well as being doomed to fail, it is Not Good (anti-Good, evil) to engage in attempted restoration.”

    …and concludes that we need…

    “to begin from our current unprecedented state of being and circumstances; and by means of intuition to seek forward, into uncharted territory – for where a profoundly Christian understanding direct us (which will be somewhere human culture has never yet been).”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sharkly says:

      While Charlton is right that we have to start from where we are, and that we can’t go back in history, his assertion that our current sinful state is “unprecedented”, (there is nothing new under the sun) and that returning to God’s best, holy patriarchy, is doomed to fail, is just the published ignorance and faithlessness of a cowardly mangina. Charlton speaks from his heart when he imagines how patriarchy would be doomed to fail if men like himself led the way, and I fully agree that with men like Charlton halfheartedly enforcing a godly patriarchy, it would be impossible to sustain it, (men just like him were those who gave it all away) and their feeble and failing attempts at reintroducing patriarchy would only serve to allow Feminists to screech all the louder about men’s failures to those woman-worshippers who hearken intently to so much of women’s defiling foolishness, as unto their goddesses.

      Christ will restore holy patriarchy with a rod of iron, but manginas like Charlton don’t have the stomach for such measures. So as long as men are cowardly and faithless like him, they can plan on continuing to give the worth-ship to be obeyed to the creature (womankind) rather than to the Creator, and continue leading others with them down the broad path of least resistance to perdition.

      Patriarchy is God’s system, the government of God’s own kingdom. (a father giving all power to His Son) We men were made to be images of God. Patriarchy is the fittest and holiest of any possible human system, and by the will of God it can and does function best, (don’t believe satanic lies) and patriarchy will be blessed by God when we Give God the worth-ship to obey His commands. To say otherwise is rebellion, specifically Feminist rebellion.

      Liked by 2 people

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 )

Connecting to %s