Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency

Posted on 2022-12-15 by Red Pill Apostle

Women have situational pseudo-agency under the cover of Headship.  Without Headship, they are woeful free agents.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Author’s Note: This essay is based on private email discussions I’ve had with Jack and Thedeti.
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Do Women have Agency?

Sometimes I chuckle to myself over the serendipitous nature of events.  In the past 5 days I have had 2 incidences where the same subject matter was addressed on separate occasions by men whose opinions I have reason to trust.  The first was with a couple guys from church regarding social media.  The second was when deti and Jack wrote to me independently about female agency.  When this happens, I tend to slow down, take notice, and ponder the subject.

In Deti on Female Accountability (2022/11/25), Deti wrote,

“I do not subscribe to The Red Pill’s tenet that women are the most responsible teenagers in the house.  No.  A woman is a fully functioning agent, with her own free will.  She is fully, personally, independently responsible for everything she does.”

I get what deti is saying, because in order to implement accountability, you have to treat women as if they have full agency, but it does not appear that they do in all circumstances … much like being a teenager.  Like the teen, it is her job to obey God and parents and to know right from wrong, but if she gets in over her head …. there is an authority to bail her out.  There is an authority to guide her and teach her to do better.  Her mistakes are not always a “once and for all” deal, but rather a part of a learning process which involves Operant Conditioning.  Scott wrote about this dynamic in How do we teach young women about their own nature? (2022/6/18).

One biblical point to consider with deti’s stance is, how does Numbers 30 fit within his statement?  According to this scripture, if a man with rightful Headship over a woman (i.e. her father) disallows her promise, then it is wiped clean to the point that God will not hold it against her.  This is coming from the Mosaic Covenant, so although the times and culture may have changed since then, the bedrock spiritual principles haven’t.

Artisanal Toad interpreted this passage to mean that women don’t have agency, but I think it is more nuanced than this.  This is definitely worth teasing out further as it may help better deal with the wifely unit.

A Woman’s Submission to Headship Redeems her Agency

I had this thought while I was on a recent fishing trip. 

Numbers 30 says a man with Headship (a father or husband) can override a faulty decision by their wife or daughter and the woman is held blameless in God’s eyes.  This passage teaches us that women covered by Headship can be absolved from bad decisions without the decision being counted against them by God.

I had another thought on this topic of agency while I was camping with my son. 

Abraham had Sarah lie for him on multiple occasions (Genesis 12:10-20; Genesis 20) and because he told her to lie and she obeyed, she was called faithful (Hebrews 11:11) even though what Abraham asked of her was lying at best and could have lead to the capital sin of adultery at worst had God not intervened, and her obedience was counted as righteousness according to St. Peter (1 Peter 3:5-6).  Her obedience — even in sinful acts — was faithful and righteous, which would suggest this odd mix of agency / non-agency for her, which I’ll call pseudo-agency.  She could have disobeyed Abraham and not lied and not been taken into Pharaoh’s harem, and then she would have possibly been held responsible for her disobedience.  But she did lie and so on, which we would say are sins she committed, but instead of the responsibility falling on her, it looks like that seems to have gone against Abraham along with his lack of faith in God’s promises to him.

Now, it could be a case of the bible talking in general about her as we have people with obvious glaring flaws listed amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, including Abraham himself.  But because Peter specifically mentions her obedience in his teaching on wifely submission (1 Peter 3:1-7), I think there is a good case to be made about headship alleviating the burden of female agency in some instances for covered women.

Headship Hierarchy

My further take on this is that it fits with the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy and how the church relates to Christ.  God takes Christ’s Headship and overrides our sin.  Likewise, God accepts a woman’s submission to her Head (father or husband) and does not count some sins against her.

Are we culpable for our sin?  Sure.  Do we bear the consequences of it?  Sometimes in the form of natural consequences we absolutely do.  But do we really bear the full brunt of the consequence for sin?  No, we don’t.  Those are on our bridegroom and they’ve already been paid for.

According to the model of marriage based on the archetype of Christ and the church, women’s agency combined with Headship leads to an interesting and perhaps difficult dynamic of women having agency some of the time, and that agency is specific to her obedience to her Head.

The passages I cited from Numbers and Genesis describe too close of a model, and that coupled with Paul’s comparison of marriage to Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-24) leads me to believe there is something for us to contemplate seriously here.

All this would suggest that absolute agency does not exist for women — that is, as long as they are under a Headship covering. I would add that all of God’s elect, men included, do not have absolute agency as Christ bears the consequences of our actions on our behalf.

Conclusions

The reason that female agency is widely debated and has intelligent, reasonable people that draw opposite conclusions is because a wife has “pseudo” agency in that she falls under the covering of Headship.  The OT law on this was not reversed nor improved upon in the NT.

What I believe drives the debate is our lack of theological understanding and a complete ignorance of the importance and responsibility of Headship.  Without Headship existing, Christ’s sacrifice would not be a “once and for all” sacrifice, and even on a secular political level, we would not have a government in the States that allows for representatives to bind citizens to the laws they create. But the thing that complicates our understanding on the question of women’s agency is that what God shows us about Headship in the bible muddies the waters of women’s agency, precisely because the associated responsibilities are transferred to a woman’s Head (i.e. her father or husband).

The other confusing part of this is that deti’s behavioral approach to agency, that is treating all women like they do in fact have full agency, is the best means of extracting the desired behavior from a woman, regardless if, from a theological standpoint, they truly have agency.

There is also the confounding factor that not all women are under Headship, and as such, those women would then have full agency themselves for better or worse.  Feminism makes this out to be a grand thing, but in fact, it has tragic implications which we are seeing more of with every passing day.  Women are much better off under a Headship covering.

So the answer to the question of whether women have agency is that it is situational, dependent on the constraints of her Headship authority, which would mean that we as men need a firm understanding of those situations.

I liken this to the Predestination vs. Free Will debate.  From a reformed standpoint, you get God’s sovereignty, and yet people retain agency to the point they are culpable for their own sin.  Even if it is God who pulls souls from death and nothing of our own doing, purely for human comprehension it makes sense to address the point as an active decision that humans make.  I know some people with Free Will viewpoints will have reasonable objections to this line of thought, but it seems to fit well with what the bible teaches us on the subjects.

Side note: Even though I am adamant about Reformed theology being true, it’s not anything I get worked up over simply because the behavioral approach is one that seems to work best for many people and to me that in no way invalidates God’s sovereignty over the matter.

Related

This entry was posted in Agency, Calculated Risk Taking, Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Discipline and Molding, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Personal Domain, Power, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, The Power of God, Trust. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency

  1. thedeti says:
    2022-12-15 at 10:12 pm

    “One biblical point to consider with deti’s stance is, how does Numbers 30 fit within his statement? According to this scripture, if a man with rightful Headship over a woman (i.e. her father) disallows her promise, then it is wiped clean to the point that God will not hold it against her.”

    “Abraham had Sarah lie for him on multiple occasions (Genesis 12:10-20; Genesis 20) and because he told her to lie and she obeyed, she was called faithful (Hebrews 11:11) even though what Abraham asked of her was lying at best and could have lead to the capital sin of adultery at worst had God not intervened, and her obedience was counted as righteousness according to St. Peter (1 Peter 3:5-6). Her obedience — even in sinful acts — was faithful and righteous, which would suggest this odd mix of agency / non-agency for her, which I’ll call pseudo-agency.”

    OK then. A man can order his wife to sin, and she has to obey him, even if he has ordered her to sin.

    So let’s get back to what I asserted several posts ago. If a man orders his wife to get an abortion, according to scripture, she MUST obey him. She is required to obey him and do what he says even if he has ordered her to commit grave sin. Numbers 30 says so. And women don’t get to question this, because if you do question it, then you have full complete agency or are improperly trying to assert it.

    Or…. are we now going to get into gradations of sin, in direct contravention to most Protestant theology which holds that sin is sin is sin, without gradation? Are we going to hew to Catholic concepts of venal sin (lying without bearing false witness) and mortal sin (murder, adultery)?

    Or…. is this because there’s a difference between lying for “good purposes” (Gen. 12, 20) and breaking the Commandment against “bearing false witness” which is one of the Big 10 (Ex. 20)? See, because the Big 10 bars “bearing false witness” which is lying under oath or giving false testimony. It doesn’t bar lying about whether that dress makes her look fat or whether you really want a kiss from Aunt Gertrude who smells of bad breath and Chiclets.

    What I don’t like is this thing women do of claiming full agency when it suits them, and then hiding behind “Don’t Hit Me! I’m A Girl!” when full agency doesn’t suit them. Ladies, you do not get to have it both ways. Either you’re full agents or you’re not. If you are, then shut up, get your wallets out, pay up, and start fixing this stuff. If you’re not, then get in line and do what your fathers, husbands, or sons tell you to do.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
    • thedeti says:
      2022-12-15 at 10:22 pm

      Oh, and another thing:

      Women, if you are full agents, then you need to be more proactive about finding, dating, marrying, and sexing, all these “nice good kind Christian men” you claim to want. Or you need to be honest and admit you don’t like these men and don’t really want them – you simply want to use them.

      Full Agents, you need to take the bull by the horns and start asking these nice good kind Christian men out. You need to start dating them and paying for the dates. You need to propose marriage to them, and you need to have as much sex with these nice good kind Christian husbands as those men want to have. Sex on demand. And stop complaining about where all these men are – they’re out there. Go find them. Be proactive. Go. Do. Make. Create. Build.

      That is, if you really are the Full Agents you claim to be….

      Or, if you are not Full Agents, then you need to stop complaining about this, you need to accept what you can get, and you need to do whatever those men tell you to do.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
    • thedeti says:
      2022-12-15 at 10:26 pm

      I don’t want to hear any complaints whatsoever about “but but but he’s ordering me to SIN!! But but but he’s proving himself a man of *low character!!” The time for assessing the character of your husband to be is before you decide to marry him. You should have figured out and sussed out his basic character long, long before clothes come off and points of no return are passed.

      No. You don’t get to complain about this. Not when you picked him.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply
    • Jack says:
      2022-12-16 at 7:43 am

      “OK then. A man can order his wife to sin, and she has to obey him, even if he has ordered her to sin.”

      It is faulty to focus on sin as being the crux of the relationship. The main point is that the wife must trust her husband and support him in whatever he decides on doing.

      Abraham didn’t tell Sarah, “We’re going to lie to Phraraoh so you can get into his harem and I can get wealthy through his favors.” He did it because he was afraid of death, not because he was a pimp.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Red Pill Apostle says:
        2022-12-16 at 9:11 am

        Jack,

        I don’t think thedeti was focusing on sin as the crux of the relationship. I think he was addressing the typical objection of “what if he tells me to sin?” that women often give for why they will not obey the bible and submit to their husbands or place self-determined limits on submission to their husbands i.e. “topping from the bottom”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-16 at 7:37 pm

        RPA:

        Yes. Exactly. I was shutting down the usual objections to male headship that women raise. The “I can’t trust him” objections.

        What if he orders me to sin

        What if he screws it up

        What if he turns out to be of low character/has some flaw I can’t deal with

        What if he just can’t do it (whatever “it” is)

        Tough sh!t. You picked him. You married him. Deal with it. Obey.

        Like

  2. redpillboomer says:
    2022-12-15 at 10:45 pm

    “There is also the confounding factor that not all women are under Headship, and as such, those women would then have full agency themselves for better or worse.”

    I’m wondering if we looked at this a little deeper it might be that modern women APPEAR to have full agency, but in reality do not. IOW, there is someone or something (i.e. the government) that is supplying “headship,” albeit not of the fatherly or husbandly kind, but more of a pseudo headship. I don’t know, just mulling this over a bit.

    For example, my mother-in-law has been a widow for 30 years. In those thirty years, she has been at times, for a season or two, under her father’s headship (now deceased), or my headship (lived under our roof on three separate occasions), or her son’s headship (now deceased too). What I’m mulling is that even though my MIL is a “contentious and foolish piece of work”, when she has been under male headship more or less, well as much as her contentious personality allows, she has fared better. Not great, but better. It’s because the male headship mitigates her foolishness in areas like how she goes about making decisions, especially in regards to money.

    Now, here’s what I’m mulling over a bit with RPA’s post here: When she’s been “free” of headship during the past 30 years, has she been really free with full agency? Or, has there been someone or something that’s been pseudo-headship over her? IOW, she appears free, but in reality is not. It’s some social construct we’ve propped up, kind of along the lines of RPA’s humorous visual posted above.

    What makes me wonder is that when my MIL has seemingly exercised full agency, she has always F’d things up, and then taken no accountability or responsibility for it because she is a victim, i.e,. claims victimhood. IOW, some nameless, faceless “he, him, her, they, them” are at fault, but not her.

    One example, she took out a loan a few years back for 10k that we knew nothing about. My wife, her main caretaker now, opens a threatening “pay or you’re in default” letter from the financial institution. My MIL immediately “falls apart” and claims victimhood, that some “he, him, they, them” was responsible for the loan. Weird, I know, however she really believes it. Even after my wife patiently explained to her, “Mom, you took this loan out. You are responsible for it, no one else is responsible. You have to pay it back.”, she just had a hard time grasping it and just fell apart again over it.

    My logical brain thinks, “Duh!!!” BUT… but, but, but… What I’m now mulling over, was the financial loan officer, whoever that was, really her acting headship in this loan situation? IOW, even though my MIL is fully responsible legally for the loan (full agency), and there is no “he, him, they, them” responsible; is it in her mind, via subtle social cues, that she’s not responsible (has no agency) because she’s a female? AND, some “male somewhere” in reality has the full agency because she’s a woman without full agency and therefore must be under some sort of headship somewhere or other.

    I don’t know. Crazy musings on my part here. RPA wrote,

    “The reason that female agency is widely debated and has intelligent, reasonable people that draw opposite conclusions is because a wife has “pseudo” agency in that she falls under the covering of Headship. The OT law on this was not reversed nor improved upon in the NT.”

    Maybe he has a point here with females like my MIL.

    Like

    Reply
    • thedeti says:
      2022-12-15 at 10:55 pm

      Your mother in law should be under a man’s headship, according to RPA’s post. She should either remarry, or be under a son’s headship, or be under your headship as the closest thing to a son she has.

      The law used to recognize this at least in part. A married woman was under “coverture”, meaning she was essentially the same person as her husband. Her identity was legally subsumed into his. This meant she could not do any of the following without her husband’s permission:

      — own real property or significantly expensive chattel
      — obtain credit in her name only
      — have a separate bank account in her name only
      — obtain medical care (at the least, her husband had the right to know about her care, what care she got, and from whom she got it)
      — obtain birth control
      — hold a remunerative occupation

      It also meant there was no such thing as marital rape. Since a husband and wife are legally the same person, a man cannot rape himself. Further, a wife was held to have given standing consent to sex to her husband.

      Any and all children born to a married woman were presumed in fact and law to be those of her husband, unless proven otherwise.

      Liked by 6 people

      Reply
      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-15 at 10:57 pm

        Of course, these are all now considered to be antiquated, obsolete concepts. Because women are supposedly all full agents now.

        Except when it doesn’t suit them. Except when the bill comes due. Except when the buck has to stop somewhere, and it has to stop with her. Except when it’s gonna cost a lot of money. Except when there will be lasting consequences. Except when it’s gonna hurt.

        except…

        except….

        except…….

        Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:
      2022-12-16 at 5:30 am

      RPB,

      Try to separate capability with responsibility when you think of agency. Your description of your MIL depicts capability issues with decision making in key areas of life. As an unmarried widow she is under her own authority and is fully responsible for the consequences of her actions. From the text, it does not appear there is anyone to bail her out morally.

      Ultimately, it is the moral responsibility we have to act without sin, which we are unable to do, that makes Christ imputing his righteousness to us through his headship necessary. It makes sense that a woman can be bailed out of the consequences of her behavior in certain instances by a man under whose headship she resides just like Christ bails us out. Similarly, when a woman is not under a man’s headship that is an uncertain place to be full of the pitfalls of acting on her own with no safety net much like our position would be if we were not under Christ’s headship.

      That Paul guy really knew what he was talking about when he made the analogy of how the Christ : Church relationship is modeled on earth by the Husband : Wife relationship. The parallels are numerous and unmistakable when you know what to look for. I also think that how closely the marriage model parallels the Christ church relationship is part of why God hates divorce so much. The ripping apart and discarding of his earthly example of his son’s sacrifice to restore relationship with us doesn’t sit well.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply
      • redpillboomer says:
        2022-12-16 at 9:05 pm

        “As an unmarried widow she is under her own authority and is fully responsible for the consequences of her actions. From the text, it does not appear there is anyone to bail her out morally.”

        Good point! I heard one minister who does quite a bit of counseling say he always silently asks himself one question while the counselee is telling their story, “What does he/she do with his/her guilt?”

        I’ve pondered what he said many times, and I’ve found it very useful when I’m listening to someone’s story, or looking at their actions, in this case my MIL. I ask myself, “What does she do with her guilt after one of those awful decisions?” In my MIL’s case she places it on some imaginary, or at least vague, “He, him, they, them.” I think this is how she “bails” herself out morally.

        Like

    • Jack says:
      2022-12-16 at 6:48 am

      RPB,

      “…was the financial loan officer, whoever that was, really her acting headship in this loan situation?”

      The Bible is clear that debt places one at the mercies of the guarantor. In a way, a guarantor is acting as a Head in the form of providing a provision (in the form of $$$), but without providing the other benefits of coverture that a family member would provide. I might call this a high risk, low benefit form of pseudo-Headship.

      In Asia, people who need money always prefer to borrow from family members, and there is an expectation that family members should work together for the overall benefit of the family. (Unfortunately, this is missing in Western culture due to “Individualism”.) Banks are second, and loan sharks are the last resort. Also, Asian banks will never lend money to anyone who is not clearly able to repay the loan, because they recognize the risk of poor investments. (Banks in the west do not take responsibility for risk and instead pass that risk off to the debtor. They will loan to just about anyone, and then take them to the cleaners if they cannot repay. See the housing market crisis of 2008 when banks snapped up real estate or the student loan debacle for example. Credit card companies are even worse.)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • catacombresident says:
        2022-12-16 at 7:17 am

        Virtually everything in the Bible assumes that tribal backing you mention. In other words, a Covenant woman has more than one Head, more than one covering. Widows were supposed to be under the headship of the clan leaders. If churches were more consistent with the Bible, it would displace literal family with spiritual extended family.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. thedeti says:
    2022-12-16 at 1:36 am

    Slightly off topic.

    I don’t want to read any more from anyone about how women really want “nice kind good Christian men”. No you don’t, and I wish you’d all just admit that.

    You don’t seek them out. When you do deign to pick one, you settle for him and you make it clear to him and everyone else that you did settle for him. You then leave and/or divorce them when you’ve extracted what you want/need from them.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
    • feeriker says:
      2022-12-16 at 2:48 am

      “Settler” needs to become a manosphere label/meme.

      “No, I’m not interested in this woman because I know she’s an alpha widow. Unless she snags another alpha who will commit to her, she’s just a settler who will make my or any other average man’s life living hell.”

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply
      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-16 at 2:50 am

        Men settle, and they’re OK with it.

        Women settle, and seethe with anger and resentment about it.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Jack says:
        2022-12-16 at 5:45 am

        “Settler” needs to become a manosphere label/meme.”

        It is interesting to note that “settle” has many definitions, but the alternate definition of the word “settle”, as the Manosphere uses it, is not in the dictionary.

        Settler: one who migrates to and organizes an area, territory, etc. or establishes a colony.

        “Settlers” do the hard work of establishing civilization, building infrastructure, and cultivating the land. Maybe “squatter” is better.

        Squatter: a person who settles on land or occupies property without title, right, or payment of rent, often in the hope of gaining such over time.

        “Squatter” also hints of a sexual position and sh!t tests.

        Sidenote: I like this dictionary because they haven’t wankered their definitions with Woke ideology. Their word of the year is “woman” with a traditional definition.

        Recently, Vox noted that the Cambridge Dictionary has revised their definitions of “man” and “woman” and that people are asking for older dictionaries to be republished.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:
        2022-12-18 at 8:39 am

        “Men settle, and they’re OK with it.

        Women settle, and seethe with anger and resentment about it.”

        Interestingly, marriages would be more stable if it were the other way around.

        Like

  4. Oscar says:
    2022-12-16 at 5:35 am

    I’m pretty sure J.K. Rowling doesn’t get to keep that illustrious company anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. Lastmod says:
    2022-12-16 at 10:53 am

    That whole thing with Abraham and Sarah……

    “Lying is okay if God tells you to…”

    In today’s world / culture:

    “I prayed about it, and god told me it was okay to do this or that” (Yeah, sure…. God spoke to you…)

    Basically it boils down to “some people are allowed and some are not.”

    Kind of like apologies today. Sure, people apologize and then justify why they should not have to.

    “Yeah, sorry about that, but if you had not done this or that, I would not have said or did this…”

    Apologies with “conditions”… It’s the same with any sin today in modern churchistanity. “It’s okay if I do it, God understands my heart. But you? No, never! You need to repent!”

    It all depends on “who” is sinning. Higher up, respected in the church community? Pastor’s son or daughter? The goody-two shoes wife? The “elders” who stick their noses up at people like me????

    Yeah, sin is okay….. “God knows their heart!” They will tell you, or justify why through scripture like Abraham and Sarah mentioned above or will outlight lie and again and tell you, “God spoke to them.”

    Anyway…

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
      • Lastmod says:
        2022-12-16 at 9:47 pm

        It’s not really addressed. It justifies “not telling the truth” and “because in ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah……….”

        We dont live in an “ancient culture” and frankly, none here would or could if you got down to brass tacks about it. Most of us would be dead at this point, 99% of us would have been poor. The cities and people back then must have stank. Badly. The stench alone would repulse and cause us to be sick on so many different levels and we would be screaming to return to 2022.

        And the constant wars…… Yes, you sir would have followed God “to the letter” and then some “king” sends you to fight the Hittites, the Shamulites, the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the Baal worshipers, or whatever “ites” or new enemy of the week that seems to be in the Bible….. Tens of thousands dead for the chosen people.

        That long winded excuse that was given is exactly how the elites in modern church speak. They makes these long stories or explanations to people like me to “explain” and “justify” why they get to sin and YOU don’t.

        Like

      • info says:
        2022-12-17 at 7:21 am

        @Lastmod,

        No. The hierarchy of morality even applies recently? Would you not lie about Jews hidden in your basement when the Gestapo comes?

        Like

  6. feeriker says:
    2022-12-16 at 3:23 pm

    “It all depends on “who” is sinning. Higher up, respected in the church community? Pastor’s son or daughter? The goody-two shoes wife? The “elders” who stick their noses up at people like me????

    Yeah, sin is okay….. “God knows their heart!” They will tell you, or justify why through scripture like Abraham and Sarah mentioned above or will outlight lie and again and tell you, “God spoke to them.”

    You’ve probably noticed how much American churchianity resembles American politics and American popular culture in its application of Lenin’s “who, whom?“

    One set of rules for the Elite, quite another for the hoi polloi.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Pingback: D. Bradley on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Donal Graeme on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Dalrock on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: Deti on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Deep Strength on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Sharkly on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Catacomb Resident on Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Zippy Catholic’s View of Female Hypoagency | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Bruce Charlton on Agency | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Female Agency | Σ Frame

  21. Rock Kitaro says:
    2022-12-20 at 11:27 pm

    A bit late to the party, but I had some strong thoughts about the whole Abraham and Sarah lying situation. Because in Dennis Prager’s book, “Genesis, the Rational Bible”, he makes arguments about how it’s okay to lie if it’s for a good reason, like saving your life or the lives of the loved ones around you.

    So… this is going to sound very naive of me in today’s culture, given everything that’s happened throughout history… but I disagree with Prager wholeheartedly. Just because God doesn’t rebuke every single sin a person committed in the Bible, it doesn’t mean he condones it (like David and others taking multiple wives).

    Abraham’s lying could be seen as “He’s doing this admirable smart thing to save their lives”… Or, it could be seen as an example of one man’s lapse in his faith given the extreme situation he faced. In reading the scriptures, I’ve not found anywhere where God condones, encourages, or approves of lying even if it is to save your own life. I believe if Abraham had prayed and asked for guidance, or simply trusted in God that they would be alright, they would’ve/could’ve found another way to survive that situation. But no one is perfect. Not even our forefathers.

    The scriptures cited from 1 Peter 3:1-7 do have the Apostle Peter lauding Sarah as an obedient wife… but it doesn’t cite that specific situation as the reason why she’s described as “obedient”. I’m willing to bet Sarah is so exalted because of her faithfulness in choosing to stick with Abraham after Abraham was compelled by God to leave his homeland for the promised land. There’s no way to know.

    Because as much as Sarah was the great matriarch that others should look up to, she was also flawed herself. The situation with Hagar and Ishmael was one instance of that. In Genesis 16, after encouraging Abraham to lie with the servant girl Hagar, and seeing Hagar conceive, Sarah treated Hagar with contempt and dealt harshly with her. You could argue that this isn’t Sarah’s fault, but Abraham’s for giving into his wife’s demands. But in reading that chapter, I’d just hate for people to overlook the fact that these were still imperfect human beings. Just because she’s described as “obedient” overall, doesn’t mean she was obedient in all things.

    One last point, and the real reason why I wanted to stress this “obedient” part. Because in the New Testament, while wives are supposed to submit to their husbands… if I command/instruct/encourage her to do something that goes against what God says through his word the Bible, from what I read, we’re supposed to put God first. Even above our spouses.

    I know Christian Feminists often use this argument specifically NOT to submit to her husband, because she might have a different interpretation of the Scriptures than him… but that’s why I hammer out that stuff early, while dating.

    Last year, I was “talking” to a girl who believed in prophecies. She literally told me that she had a dream from God, then two people from her Caribbean church interpreted this dream as a prophecy, and thus, she was going to follow the dream God gave her. She even had scriptures to back it up, teaching me something new. This concept called “Continuationism,” which is the belief that the Holy gifts, like prophecies and miracles have continued to the present age.

    Because I disagreed, fearing that one day she might have a dream that prompts her to leave me or do whatever she wants, while using some prophecy she had as an excuse… left her alone.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  22. Pingback: The Captain and First Mate Analogy | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Do you have a Communist Marriage? | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: 16 Bible Passages for Teaching Wives and Daughters about Male-Female Roles and Marriage | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: The Reality | Σ Frame

Leave a comment