Al Mohler Getting Even Scarier
July 25, 2005
Thanks to Carlos for keeping us upon on what Al Mohler's saying. This time he favourably quotes the following:
The constant imbibing of feminism, mixing together with man's native sinfulness, has resulted in an epidemic of passive-purple-four-ballism in modern marriages. Men have permitted themselves to be emasculated into a company of wimp eunuchs, who believe it should be their goal to strive toward being passive nice guys in their homes. We've been told, and actually now believe, that "authority" is a naughty word, that male headship is abusive, and that aggressive leadership is rude. Thus, husbands have abdicated the driver's seat and taken a back seat in their marriages.
And it's our fault, men! We've got to reject modern thinking and take up biblical thinking. Without apology, the Scriptures teach that the man is to be the leader in his marriage and in his home. Husbanding is a crucial endeavor requiring manly dominion.
what exactly is so scary about Mohler's words?
Posted by: lotsoffun | July 25, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Hah,hah,hah,hah,hah,aaaah. Oh, man. lotsoffun, you crack me up. I can see this is the beginning of a beautiful troll nuisance.
What's scary is that Mohler likens modernity (or post-mod) to a time that's UN-biblical. It 's dangerously close to sectarian muslims pining for the days of the 1100s or whatever time warp some are stuck in. Mohler is furthering his reputation as a closet homosexual by continuing to run in the opposite directions.
Posted by: Phil | July 25, 2005 at 01:07 PM
troll? he he. that is funny. The only reason I come to this site is to gather awesome examples of ad hominem arguments....
"He is wrong because... uh, um, he is a moron.... and a closet homosexual... yeah, so take that."
"closet homosexual"? that is even funnier.
Posted by: Phil is a lot of fun | July 25, 2005 at 01:14 PM
Damn right. Now, if we's can jist git them women banned from the votin' agin, we mens would be able to pro-claim our rightful seat in da family and what-not without them bleedin' heart liberals passin' laws agin' us.
Posted by: Trav | July 26, 2005 at 01:24 PM
okay, the resident 'more-conservative-than-she-used-to-be' reader is going to speak up...
you know, this is not talking about put-the-woman-in-her-place authority. this is talking about a belief that men are fundamentally different than women, and because of this, we have different roles. and in this view, a man's role is not to be overly-passive. if you don't hold this belief, then of course mohler is speaking crap to you.
but if you do hold this belief, it speaks that a man needs to take an active role in in household. if the wife runs everything, makes all the decisions, plans the schedule...and then if she is a mom, she's got all that mothering stuff to do. that makes for a cranky woman. or a overly-self-important one. really. and God didn't intend for his children to be either. and anyhow, it is hard to be nurturing if you are overly-self-important, and there needs to be nurturing in any kind of family.
does my husband have the final say in everything? no. but neither do i. we're partners...which wouldn't happen if he were overly-passive, or if i were. mohler is saying, men, step it back up. it is okay for you to have an opinion. it is okay for you to work with your wife. and as a woman, wife, mother, christian, i'm okay with this. he's not calling for total household domination by the male, enless you want to read it that way.
trust me, i'll be the first to post if something goes to far in the 'authority' area. but imho, this hasn't. plenty of men need to hear this message. plenty of women do to. over-passivity is a bane to ANY relationship.
Posted by: nenana | July 26, 2005 at 02:51 PM
I suppose I would tend to agree with Nenana's perception if only AM framed it in such light. In 20 months of marriage and dating my wife 4 years before that, I can definitely attest to marriage-as-a-partnership. A big part of that has to do with our ying-yang personalities. We fit together as a team better than, say, my parents do (who still happen to be married). But, my padres met and married in 8 months and are both first-born hard-heads. My father's passive aggressiveness and my mother's flightiness make for a very poor marriage model. They still love each other but I often see more tension than happiness. We won't even go into their financial sense (or severe lack thereof). All that to say, where do we find the role model for couples? We've gotten a weird hybrid of 50s-Era-Model-Worshipping from the Fundies who only seem to be pining after the past. They forget that time moves forward. Al Mohler also forgets that we live in an era where family doesn't mean Husband-Wife-child-child. For most it's Granma-child-child or Single Parent-child-child-child or Brother-Sister or ad infinitum.
Sure we can call for the Man to be "the Man." but, let's make sure we're not disillusioned by some impossible archetype.
Phil
Posted by: Phil | July 28, 2005 at 09:54 AM
Mohler's own words indicate to me that he feels contempt for women, and needs to dominate them to keep his fears of inadequacy at bay. Using the Bible as an excuse to treat women as inferior and dominate them is execrable. It's also unsupportable as a general stance, since even in Mohler's world, women will often end up as the family head in the event of illness, death or long-term absence of a husband due to military service or other. A family is never served well by a leader who doesn't feel and therefore act out of a sense of legitamacy.
Mohler seems like a sad little excuse for a real man, exactly the kind of man he claims to have contempt for. It looks like a classic case of projection.
Posted by: GTinMN | July 30, 2005 at 04:07 PM
you know, let's talk to mrs. mohler. she's the one with the real take on the guy! lol
Posted by: nenana | August 02, 2005 at 02:25 AM
For the record, Mrs. Mohler is an incredibly happy and joyful woman who loves and is loved by Dr. Mohler. Anyone who witnesses their family together knows them to be a model of blessed Christian marriage.
Look at... http://www.sbts.edu/resources/publications/magazine/2003Summer.pdf (pages 20-23)
Posted by: St. Louis Baptist | August 02, 2005 at 03:10 PM
Why would I read any page that starts with 'www.sbts.edu?' There's been nothing printed in there that's been truthful...ever.
Fact.
p
Posted by: Phil | August 03, 2005 at 07:56 AM
Phil says,"Don't confuse me with the facts.
My mind is already made up."
Posted by: St. Louis Baptist | August 03, 2005 at 03:53 PM