A Letter of Hope
The Story of a Heart Turned to Home
By Bonnie Hall
Posted: February 25, 2004
In 2002 I attended a homeschool conference and at the urging of a
friend I signed up for all of the Doug Phillips sessions. I had never
heard of Mr. Phillips or of Vision Forum so I had no idea what was
in store for me. I can only say that the message he shared
changed my life. I had never heard anyone speak with such clarity
and passion about the family and the roles of men and women. In
two days, I underwent a radical paradigm shift; I was convicted to
evaluate myself, my life, and everything I thought to be true about
womanhood. It seemed as if all of a sudden God was leading me
down a path that I felt totally unprepared for (but strangely, part of
me felt like my whole life had been leading up to this moment).
I was in the military, US Air Force (four years) and the Air Force
Reserve (fourteen years), for a total of eighteen years. I had
reached the rank of Master Sergeant with only two more years left
to retirement. I have a three-year old daughter who was an
unexpected surprise and gift from God. (I didn’t think I could have
children.) When I had her I contemplated getting out of the service
but was talked into staying by other members in my unit. For two
and a half years I struggled with that choice. I hated leaving my
daughter for my weekend drills and in my heart I knew that
something was not right — a mother should be with her child. I also
knew that if my husband, who is also in the military, Army National
Guard, and I were both called up for active duty my daughter would
be left behind without her parents. Even though it was a remote
possibility, that scenario was unacceptable to me.
I was a Career Advisor. It was my job to advise service members
on their career decisions; however this decision seemed too
tough. I was so close to retiring with all the benefits and about to
receive the title for which I had worked so long for: “retired military
veteran”. How could I give it all up now? I found myself asking God
what He thought. I prayed, I searched the Scriptures, I sought the
advice of a few godly people, but answers seemed conflicting and
slow to come. Then, as only God can do, it all became very clear:
1. I am my child’s mother, God entrusted her life to me. I am the
one responsible for raising her, not someone else. 2. If I could not
recommend a military career to another young mother, then why
was I doing it myself? As Christians we must walk the talk, living
our lives by our conviction. I felt I was living a lie.
We [women] hear a lot of deceitful messages from our society.
The feminist movement has distorted the importance of our God
designed roles and responsibilities. They have undermined our
families and cheapened motherhood. The world screams a loud
message, “you deserve more”. It becomes very difficult to reject
the appeal of an exciting career, extra money, or titles of earthly
importance. But God’s message is very different. His message is
“your family deserves more”. Following God’s plan, no matter how
perfect, isn’t always easy. It often goes against everything that
everybody is telling you. It often requires sacrifices and
selflessness. Sometimes it seems too costly or painful, and this
was one of those times.
After eighteen years of service I requested a discharge and I
walked away. Wow, what a painful decision that was to make. It
was emotional. I had been a member of the military my entire adult
life. Now it was coming to a premature end. I felt guilty for
abandoning my fellow servicemen just as our nation was preparing
for war. I also felt like I betrayed my commitment to defend our
country. I even remember feeling scared because for the first time
since leaving my father’s house I was completely dependent upon
someone else for financial provision. Words cannot explain the
deep sense of loss that overwhelmed me. My past life was riddled
with bad choices and disappointments, but the military was always
my one constant stabilizing factor. It was a great source of pride
for me and it was a part of who I was. That was all gone now. I had
sacrificed my dreams. For many, many months after I made the
decision to leave, I felt grief and self-doubt. I was left wondering if
I had made the right choice.
Then one day I was checking out Vision Forum Ministries website
and ran across their “hot topics” on women in the military.
Everything they said, every scripture they used, was exactly what
God had revealed to me in my search for answers. It was as if they
were writing my story. Even in my time of sorrow and confusion,
Vision Forum ministered to me in a wonderful way. They kept me
focused on God’s calling for women and gave me confidence that
I had done the right thing.
Transitioning to a “civilian” was a humbling experience, and to be
honest it still hurts from time to time, but I do not regret my choice.
It was only the love for my daughter and with the strength of God
that I could walk away. It seemed to be an act of obedience that I
could not deny. Some people thought it was crazy, some thought it
was courageous and others just didn’t understand it. All I know is
that sometimes God asks us to do the illogical and unexpected
and it is during those times that we must walk in faith.
The day I received my discharge certificate in the mail could have
been very sad. But in God’s perfect timing, on that day I also
received a letter from a very dear aunt, with words of
encouragement for choosing my family over the military. Isn’t God
great!
The lessons I have learned are priceless and too numerous to
mention. First and foremost, I have learned that God requires our
total surrender. But by trusting and obeying I have been blessed
with new eyes — “twas blind but now I see”. I can clearly see the
truth of what it means to be a godly woman. And what a beautiful
gift that has been. I have many bad habits from years of a
rebellious spirit and I’m very rough around the edges, so this
refining process will be a long journey. Most days it feels like I
never will be the woman I hope to be, but at least now I have a
vision for who I want to be “when I grow up” in Christ. I pray that I
can pass that gift along to my little girl and she too will stand in awe
of the marvelous plan that God has for a woman’s life.
“Lean not on your own understanding, acknowledge Him, and He
will make your paths straight.” God has solidified that truth in my
heart, in my life and for our family.
Married to a man of valor (Deut 3:18-19),
Bonnie Hall
P.S. I am grateful for the guidance and resources that I have found
through Vision Forum Ministries. The impact that they have had on
our family is immeasurable. I praise God and thank Doug Phillips
for speaking the truth about godly womanhood.
What Kind of Nation Sends Women into Combat?
By R. Cort Kirkwood, Jr.
Posted: April 16, 2003
The ridiculous spectacle of rescued POW Pfc. Jessica Lynch, the
feisty, ballyhooed warrior of the Army's 507th Maintenance
Company, which was butchered early on in Iraq, occasioned the
usual war whoops. Yet no one asked a simple question: What in
heaven's name was a hundred-pound girl, barely out of pigtails and
high school, doing in a combat zone?
The more cosmic abstraction of woman in combat evokes little if
any debate these days, and what little debate we hear isn't loud
enough. Other women have been killed and captured, including at
least one single mother, and it's all just part of the modern military.
As one lady columnist for the Washington Post triumphantly
pronounced, the debate over women in combat "is over."
How many Americans knew that?
Whatever the answer, a few days ago in this corner of cyberspace,
this writer suggested a fine way to stop American wars of
conquest: Conscript the sons of politicians and bureaucrats who
start them. Nearly three dozen letters came in, almost every one
posing this question with the corollary mandate: Why are you
excluding the daughters? Let Bush send his daughters to war.
It's a passionate and in some ways understandable reaction.
And most likely, it won't be long before women, along with young
men, are required to register for the draft; the explanation for that
observation appears below. But first, an answer for those
correspondents: The debate over women in combat turns on two
questions: whether women can do it (handle the rigors of combat)
and whether they should do it (is it morally acceptable and socially
desirable).
In a word, no. It is un-American, un-Christian, and immoral.
The Practical Question
As a practical matter, 99 percent of women are unsuited for
combat, and that includes flying combat aircraft and serving on
combatant ships. That women do these things doesn't mean they
should; it just means the military has been feminized and
civilianized, as any military man will admit after a few shots of Jack
Daniels at the Officers' Club, and of course, after his commanding
officer leaves.
In the early 1990s, I was a staff member on the Presidential
Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.
The evidence the commission gathered was clear on one thing:
Women don't belong in combat.
The evidence showed women lack the necessary physical
prowess. The strongest woman recruit, generally, is only as strong
as the weakest man. Given that the services try to weed out the
weakest men, it's counterproductive to recruit even the strongest
women. And our volunteer military, remember, doesn't get the
strongest women; it gets average women.
As well, women suffer higher rates of bone fractures, and other
factors such as menstruation, pregnancy and aging militate against
recruiting women as combat soldiers. The 20-something woman,
for instance, has about the same lungpower as the 50-something
man.
Well, that might be true for ground combat, the feminists insist, but
surely they can fly jets and bombers. It's all just a Nintendo game
up there. Again, untrue. Flying high-performance jets requires
incredible conditioning and strength, particularly in the neck. Top
Gun fighter pilots told the commission (and news reports later
confirmed) that unqualified lady pilots routinely passed Naval flight
training. At that time at least, officers were rated on the number of
women they promoted. The result in one case? Kara Hultgreen,
the first woman to "qualify" flying an F-14, was killed when her jet
crashed because she couldn't land it on the carrier Abraham
Lincoln.
But let's suppose women fly jets as well as men. What happens
when one is shot down? The safety of the high-tech cockpit is
gone, and she is alone on the ground, trying to survive. She is
another Jessica Lynch.
As for the ships, consider the obvious: You don't send a few nubile
sailorettes aboard Navy ships with 1,500 horny sailors, no matter
what the Navy says about its "leadership" correcting carnal
temptations. As well, the strength deficit surfaces again in many
shipboard tasks too numerous to mention here.
Military training is another area where the women fall flat; they
cannot survive the same basic training as men, so it is
"gender-normed." That means the services (and military
academies) have different standards for women than for men, and
not just for hair length. If women were held to the same standards
as men, more than 14 percent of our armed forces would not be
women; they could not attend the academies. Oddly enough, the
feminists aver that scrapping the double standard would be
discriminatory! So much for judging someone on her true merit.
In the decade since the commission heard tons of testimony on
these points, nothing has changed unless women have evolved
markedly improved muscle and bone. In reply to these
unassailable facts, some suggest some women can meet the
same standards with the proper weight training and physical-fitness
regimen. That's a stretch, but let's say a few can. That takes us
back to the weakest man vs. the strongest woman. What standard
would these few meet? The lowest among the men? Even if they
fell among men of medium strength, consider the prohibitive cost
of selecting these Amazonian anomalies from among general
population. And finding them assumes they want to be found.
A friend of mine, a former Green Beret, suggests an experiment:
Let's train two squads, one all women, the other all men, to peak
physical and combat-ready condition. Then drop them in the
woods for a war game and see who wins.
Point is, women get by in the military only because of men. As one
Internet wag observed, the equipment one man carries into
combat is nearly as heavy, perhaps heavier, than Jessica Lynch.
Lynch and women her size do not have the strength to carry a
fallen 200-pound comrade out of harm's way. Forgetting about
combat, some women aircraft mechanics need men to lift their
toolboxes. Without men, the armed forces would collapse, and the
more women the military enlists, the weaker it becomes.
As one commissioner remarked in exasperation: "Women are not
little men, and men are not big women."
The Moral Question
That leaves the moral and social questions, which commission
member and Vietnam War hero Ron Ray addressed with this
remark: "The question isn't whether women can do, it's whether
they should do it."
Women should only be used in combat, Ray argued, if national
survival demands it; i.e., when the Indians are circling the ranch and
the men are dead and wounded. Even then, using women would
be a last resort. It would not become a policy. Such an emergency
isn't likely to happen here unless Saddam Hussein's vaunted
Republican Guards make a spectacular comeback and march into
Jonah Goldberg's and Sean Hannity's neighborhoods. In that case,
we know all the women will be fighting.
The kidding aside, the moral and social argument is one of "rights"
vs. what is right. The feminists claim combat service is a "right."
Nonsense.
A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or an operating room,
and the contrary notion is hyperegalitarianism rooted in feminist
fantasies that women "will have made it" when they have
commanded troops in battle. Women do not have a "right" to
serve. Military service for volunteers is a privilege; for draftees, it is
a duty. No one has a "right" to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to
having the "right" to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the
military, whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy
his capacity to fight.
In "Crimson Tide," Gene Hackman's submarine skipper explained
the point: The armed forces defend democracy, they do not
practice it.
So much for "rights." Now, as to whether women in combat is right:
At one commission hearing, Col. John Ripley, one of the most
famous Marines who fought in Vietnam, explained combat for the
largely civilian audience. A good picture of real combat, he said, is
walking down a path to find your best friend nailed to a tree, or his
private parts in his mouth. The feminists and military women in the
audience gnashed their teeth.
Then again, they don't understand that until Bill Clinton's war
minister Les Aspin changed it, the law excluding women from
combat was always considered a privileged exemption, not sex
discrimination. It was the thoughtful recognition that women should
be spared the carnage and cruelty of war.
Why?
Because turning a woman into the kind of person who views such
gore without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton
killing war requires, is a step down to pagan barbarism and cultural
suicide. In some sense, given what we've seen in the Gulf, we've
already taken that step. But the feminists won't quit until they get
women into ground combat units. As recent events prove, no one
seems to care what all this means not only culturally but also
psychologically.
It will require training men and women to regard the brutalization of
women, and a woman's brutalization of others, as normal and
acceptable. To train the men properly, a woman commissioner
observed, we must erase everything their mothers taught them
about chivalry; i.e., that a real man protects a woman from harm.
Instead, they must be trained to brain a woman with a pugil stick in
training. This truth raises two paradoxes.
On one hand, to completely desensitize the men, such training
would be required. But the feminists don't want that because
women can't meet the same standards as men; they won't survive
it. Yet how are these women to survive combat if they cannot
survive real, not gender-normed, basic training? The men would
have to protect them. Successfully integrating women in combat
means this: A soldier must ignore the screams of a woman POW
being tortured and raped.
On the other hand, while the feminists never stop the
finger-wagging about "domestic abuse," they importune us to inure
men to the wartime abuse of women. Again, to some degree,
we're already there. The capture and torture of Jessica Lynch and
Shoshana Johnson, the single mother, was just another day in the
war. But then again, the society that sent these young women to
war is the same one that has steroidally-fortified men and women
bashing each other senseless in television's faux wrestling, which
presents the illusion that women really can fight against men, as
well as preposterous movies about women Navy SEALS, or
women who receive the Medal of Honor while the men cower in
fear.
Lastly, assigning women to combat, or even combat support units
like the 507th, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for
which nature has not prepared them. Such assignments endanger
not only the women but also the men around them, who will redirect
their attention from fighting toward protecting or helping the
women. Men will do that because they are men, because
regardless of feminist propaganda, good parents teach their sons
about chivalry and honor. The Steinem brigade doesn't like it, but
it's true nonetheless. Thus, men will die unnecessarily. That is
immoral and unjust, as is ordering married men and women to live
in close quarters where they are tempted to adultery. Some
observers even question the legality of orders sending women into
combat. But that is a debate for another day.
Ray's point? Civilized Christians don't send women and mothers to
fight the wars. Chronicles editor Tom Fleming has observed that
our nation has become anti-Christian. The saga of Pfc. Lynch and
other military women proves him right. The Final Answer
Back to that draft
Don't be surprised if women are required to register. Legally
speaking, the draft exemption for women is tied to their exemption
from combat. Now women serve in aerial and naval action. And
given the proximity to combat of women in "maintenance" and
other units, it won't be long before the politicians, and bemedaled
generals in the Army and Marines, hoist the white flag and put
women in ground combat. Then, some young man will file the
inevitable "equal protection" lawsuit and the exemption will fall, its
legal rationale having been dropped.
Oddly enough, the silly clamor for women in combat assumes
most military women want combat assignments. The commission
found that they don't. Only a few aging feminists do, and of course,
they won't be subject to the combat assignments or the draft.
When you join the military, you join voluntarily, but you go where
they need you. When women get their "right" to fight, they won't
have the "right" to refuse. And why would they? After that, again,
comes the draft for women.
The answer to the many folks who suggest conscripting women is
this: Real Americans don't send women to war. Neither do real
men. A genuine Christian wouldn't contemplate it. The story of
Jessica Lynch reveals an awful truth: All three are in short supply,
particularly among American political and military leaders.
Syndicated columnist R. Cort Kirkwood served on the Presidential
Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how
he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and
productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be
lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp
Do a Google search on Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, and see what happened
to her and her parents, which will explain her position on gun-control,,JF
September 25, 2005
Senators Schumer and Feinstein Packing Heat
Jim Kouri, CPP
A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of
Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and
sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed
firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should
not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96
percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal
sources.
Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States
due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens
from carrying concealed handguns.
At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun
ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane
Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according
to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional
expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is
to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government
intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the
Second Amendment.
The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun
proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to
expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many
other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny
other citizens -- met with limited results.
Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police
Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In
fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of
the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources
for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's
special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms,
while he enjoys layers of protection.
"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much --
he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator
Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New
York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big
Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed
firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home
or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their
firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security,
jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator
Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for
himself.
And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who
possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in
San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit.
Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in
program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the
donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body
guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the
meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own
personal self-defense.
Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second
Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based
columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms
ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who
trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he
wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an
African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm.
That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control
advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.
Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell,
who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck
because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment.
Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed
bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something
the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford.
Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National
Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York
City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City"
by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he
served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and
director of security for several major organizations. He's also
served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and
security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police
and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times,
The Narc Officer and others, and he's a columnist for
TheConservativeVoice.Com, AmericanDaily.Com,
MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by
AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for
over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah,
McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.
His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com,
Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri
holds a bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in
public administration and he's a board certified protection
professional. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
September 28, 2005
The Assault on Self-Defense!
By Doug Hagin (AKA Gatordoug)
The debate over gun control is decades old, it is also going to
continue to rage on for decades to come. For many who do not
really take sides or think the debate is just another partisan political
fight which does not effect them, there is a new shining example of
how there is no escaping this debate.
The issue of gun control does indeed affect all of us. It does not
matter if you own no guns or 100 guns. Whether or not you are a
member of the National Rifle Association or the type of person
who would never feel comfortable owning a gun matters not. The
real essence of the battle between gun control advocates and gun
rights advocates is not over guns. In the end, it is all about the right
for you and me to defend ourselves.
Now on the surface this might seem a stretch. Consider however
the most important aspect of gun ownership. The ability to protect
your property, loved ones. The ability to defend your very life.
There is no more essential and basic human right than the right to
self-defense. Without this right, your right to live feely, speak or
write freely, or live as you choose are meaningless.
Seven years ago, I came face to face with a masked man in an
alley as I left work. He had a gun and a desire to do me no good!
What if the gun control advocates had their way? How would I have
fared that night? Considering that, I was cornered and unable to
flee, or face my assailant on equal terms I might not be writing this
at all. I might very well be a statistic.
Fortunately, for me the laws in Texas DO allow its residents to be
armed. I was able, although cornered to have an equal footing.
Because I was armed, and prepared, my attacker decided that his
intentions were not worth dealing with my Colt.45. One criminal
running away and one innocent, law-abiding citizen safe seems like
a pretty good end does it not.
Not according to gun control advocates. According to their desires,
I should have been forced to run instead of facing down the
miscreant criminal. Got that? If you are minding your own business
and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gin control
crowd wants the onus to be on you to flee, or retreat, or do
anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm.
How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to
adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of
a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if
need be against criminals. That is the essence of the
disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.
Forget the gun control advocates impassioned pleas for a “safer”
nation. Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans have proven to
decrease violent crime time and again. It is not violent crime the
gun control advocates have issue with. It is, instead, the right for us
to defend ourselves.
For some definitive evidence of this consider a recently passed
law in Florida that allows citizens to stand their ground and use
deadly force when assaulted on the street or any other location
other than their home. Gun control advocates were incensed that
such a law could pass. In their ideology you, the law-abiding must
run, even if it puts you at greater risk, rather than use your gun to
stop the criminal who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you or your family.
Now the state of Michigan is following Florida’s lead. They are
trying to pass a law, which closely mirrors the Florida statute. Want
to take a guess who is trying to prevent the passage of this law,
which respects the right to self-defense? Try the Brady Campaign
to Prevent Gun Violence, headed by gun grabber Sarah Brady.
In short, the Michigan law would remove the requirement that
people being attacked must retreat before responding with deadly
force. It would allow people who feel threatened, even in a public
area, to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without
facing criminal or civil prosecution. Seems like a common sense of
legislation doesn’t it?
Not to the anti self-defense crowd on the left though. Consider for
a moment some of the comments by these folks. "There are a lot
more guns on the street and then you're going to get the right to
use them willy-nilly? That doesn't bode real well," This, of course,
is the same tired argument Sarah Brady has always used to
oppose concealed carry laws. If Americans carry guns, they go
nuts and shoot everything that moves. Nothing could be further
removed from reality! Over 30 states have concealed carry laws
and those states have gotten MORE not LESS safe!
Now consider this quote from Shikha Hamilton, who heads the
Michigan chapter of Million Mom March. "The scariest part is that
you're removing the duty to retreat. That's really there to preserve
life," said Hamilton. "And if you take someone's life you should
have to answer to the police. ... No one is in jail right now for
protecting their family."
Got that my friends? YOU the innocent should have to run, lest you
defend yourself and harm a criminal! Moreover, if you dare harm a
violent felon YOU should face prison time! Once more how
backwards and morally retarded are the gun control zealots? They
want to punish those who defend their lives!
Additionally:
Armed and polite: "We think people visiting Florida should be
aware of this law, and act accordingly. Visitors should be very
careful about getting into an aggressive argument with anyone
during their stay." —Sarah Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, warning tourists about the new "Stand Your
Ground" law in Florida allowing deadly force, without required "duty
to retreat," against anyone breaking into a home, car, or workplace.
I guess she thinks 1) tourists are breaking into our homes,
highjacking our cars and shooting up our workplaces,2) when they
do, we should argue with them,,,JFPerverted Patriarchy
From: http://www.patriarch.com/
Not all that goes by the name patriarchy is the real thing. At least
it's not biblical patriarchy. We thought it was time to make a clear
distinction between what we mean by the term patriarchy and what
sometimes tries to pass for it.
We have been distressed upon occasion to run across a man who
seems to have grasped only half of the biblical patriarchy
message. Usually he is very clear about the part that says the man
is the head of his family, that he rules the home, and that his wife is
required to submit to his authority. As it says on the inside of our
back cover in every issue of our magazine: A patriarch is a family
ruler. He is the man in charge.
However, that seems to be the limit of the understanding of some
men about the concept. What such a man does not grasp is the
nature of the leadership he has been given and how it should be
exercised. The result is a distorted form of leadership that can be
damaging to his family life and especially to his relationship with his
wife. To the extent that we have not been careful enough to
articulate the nature of biblical leadership and keep this emphasis
before our readers, we may well share responsibility for the
deformity of the practice of some men. Well, we want to set the
record straight here and now and call all or our readers to a
patriarchy that is worthy of being described as biblical.
The key text that reveals the nature of true Christian leadership,
including the nature of a husband/father's rule, is Jesus' words in
Matthew 20:25-28. Our Lord here radically redefines the nature of
authority, even as he confirms the urgency of this redefinition by
His own example.
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those
who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so
among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let
him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you,
let him be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be
served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
The world's definition of authority is expressed in the phrase lord it
over. The idea is that the one with the authority wields power or
control over his subjects. Leadership is about the will of the leader:
he is in control and he gets to implement his will over those he
rules. They must submit their wills to his. Worldly definitions of
authority center around the power that the leader exerts over others
by the dominance of his will over theirs. He lords it over them.
Whoever gets the reins of power gets to have his way. Leadership
is about control above all else.
Jesus says that this is not the model of leadership that He wants
his followers to practice. Christian leadership is not about
someone controlling others and asserting his will over them; it is
about serving them. Serving someone is the very opposite of
asserting one's will over them. A slave yields his will in order to
serve his master. A Christ-like leader will yield his will in order to
serve those under his authority. Jesus demonstrated this style of
leadership in that He gave His life for the sake of those He came to
lead.
Another way of saying this is that Christian leadership is more a
matter of influence than control. God's kingdom advances in this
world not by God's external control of people but by His working
changes within people, making them want to obey Him. Jesus
could have come and established His kingdom by the sheer
exertion of power, demanding obedience and enforcing it with the
sword. Instead He choose to serve those over whom He was Lord
and to cause them to want to submit to Him. His leadership is not
an external exercise of power; it is an internal influence, leading His
followers to obey Him willingly.
We need to be clear: In His service Jesus did not give up His
position of authority. He is indeed King of kings and Lord of lords,
and His subjects owe Him their obedience. The point is that He did
not use His position to lord it over His subjects. Though He has all
authority in heaven and in earth, the means through which He
implements His authority is service, self-denial, and influence.
The application of these truths to husbands and fathers is as
obvious to state as it is hard to practice. Men have the position of
leadership within their homes, and their wives and children owe
them obedience and respect because of that. However, the
Christian family head will not aim to lord it over his family, asserting
his will and demanding the right to control his wife and children. He
will instead seek to lead by service, by dying to his own will in order
to seek their welfare. His leadership will be characterized more by
the subtle and winsome exercise of influence than by the raw
exertions of power, yet without abdicating in the least his
responsibility for the direction of the family.
Unfortunately, as we wrote at the start, some men grasp the
concept that they are the family ruler but fail to grasp that their
mantle of authority is to be worn with an attitude of service. These
men think that they are leading effectively just because they insist
on having their way in the home, when in fact they are simply being
self-willed tyrants, lording it over their little kingdoms. Pity the poor
wife and children who are cursed with such a man!
A Christ-like husband is one who is always aware that his authority
in the home is not his by right. It is his only because God has
delegated some of His authority to the man to use on His behalf.
The earthly father is a steward of what belongs to God. This
realization will cause the man to wear his authority with humility, not
pride.
ANGER AND SELF-WILL
One of the common signs that a man is lording it over his family
instead of leading them in a Christ-like manner is anger. A tyrant
gets angry when his will is not obeyed, when his subjects don't
submit to his control. The tyrannical husband gets angry a lot
because his self-will is always near the surface of his heart and
because anger is itself a device to control others through
intimidation. When there is a conflict with his wife, for example, he
tries to solve the problem by the assertion of his will and the
display of his temper. He is attempting to control his wife through
the power of his will. If he wins this battle of wills, he will have lost
the heart of his wife, and his family will be worse off for his
leadership.
In contrast, a mature Christian husband and father doesn't take it
personally when his will is crossed. His aim is to guide his family in
God's ways, and he is more grieved than angered when his
authority is not respected (cf. Matt. 23:37). He is able to look
beyond the offense (real or imagined) and continue to care for his
wife. Out of love for her, and with a heart of service, he will gently
continue the discussion, assuming an attitude of humility. He will
grant that he may not be seeing everything correctly himself and
will be genuinely open to his wife's opinion and insights. If the
disagreement persists, at least the relationship will not be broken.
He will be communicating love and a willingness to yield to his wife
where possible, but he will stand on principle when he needs to do
so. His wife may disagree with him, but she will know he is not
being self-willed and that he truly cares for her.
Husbands need to pay close attention to the admonition found in
James 1:19-20: So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be
swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man
does not produce the righteousness of God. In any conflict we
should choose very consciously to listen carefully to our wives.
This in itself shows that we have regard for them in love, but we
may also learn what is motivating her concerns and may discover
some blind spots in ourselves. We also should be slow to speak.
We should not be too quick to pronounce judgment on the wife's
behavior or attitude; we should instead be very careful to give her
the benefit of the doubt. Being slow to speak may also protect us
from bursting forth with angry words that we will later regret. Finally,
we should always be doubtful about the righteousness of our
anger. It is possible to be angry and not sin (Eph. 4:26) if we are
sharing God's anger at some sin or injustice, but the self-willed
anger of a man does not accomplish God's righteous purposes in
the life of a family. The vast majority of the time, our anger is a sign
of a failure of leadership.
HONORING YOUR WIFE
Another evidence of a perverted understanding of patriarchy is
when a man fails to love and honor his wife. Some men are quick
to site the scriptural mandate that a wife must submit to her
husband and to stress that the man is the head of his home.
Strangely these same men don't talk much about their obligation to
love their wives, or they pass over it quickly with heroic statements
about being willing, if the need ever arose, to die for their wives -
even though they wouldn't think of dying to their own will right now!
After talking to wives about the need to submit to their husbands
and trust God for the outcome, Peter turns his attention to the men:
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 nay not be hindered
(1 Pet. 3:7). This charge is parallel to the more familiar words of
Paul, Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the
church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and
cleanse her with the washing of water by the word… (Eph. 5:25).
These verses are consistent with the definition of leadership we
heard earlier on the lips of our Lord: you lead by means of humble
service; the best leader is the best servant. Taking these
passages together, we conclude that there are three specific ways
that a husband can love his wife and practice a biblical patriarchy.
HEIRS TOGETHER
First, a husband should honor his wife as his partner in life
(…giving honor to the wife… as being heirs together of the grace
of life…). A woman is not less than a man. She has a dignity and
value equal to the man. She, too, is an image-bearer of God (Gen.
1:27). She, too, is an heir of God and joint-heir of Christ (Gal. 3:28;
4:7). Her position in the home is just as important as the husband's.
She, too, is a teacher (Prov. 1:8). Her labors are vital to building up
the home (Prov. 14:1). Indeed, without her there could be no home
(1 Cor. 11:11,12). A wife is due honor because she is fully a
partner of the man by virtue of creation and redemption.
The wife is the inferior of the husband only in the functional sense.
A man is not given the superior position of headship because he is
better than his wife; he is given it because that is God's
arrangement to maintain order and harmony in the home. The wife
is in the glorious position of imitating Christ's humility as He
voluntarily submitted His will to the Father, though He was Himself
God! A woman submits to her husband not because she is inferior,
but because her calling is to show forth God's glory in her
Christ-like submission. Just as the husband is called to exhibit
Christ in his servant-leadership, the wife is called to exhibit Christ in
her willing subjection to her husband. Although she is functionally
subordinate, in other respects the wife may well be the equal of her
husband, or even his superior. Often a wife will be her husband's
superior in terms of her intelligence, her natural skills or spiritual
gifts, her physical stamina and overall health, her Christian
character. So a man should honor his wife because she has equal
worth and dignity in every way, but also because she has a unique
dignity and shows forth Christ in her calling to be submissive.
Yet too often a Christian husband will seem to despise his wife in
his words and conduct, as if she is an inferior person. Some
pseudo-patriarchs treat their wives as if they were children,
commanding them with an imperious tone and displaying an
attitude that borders on contempt. One of the worst offenses is for
a man to correct his wife in front of other people; he is treating her
like a child when he does this. To humiliate his partner in this way is
a sign that he needs some serious humbling himself! Such
behavior is an affront not only to the wife but also to Christ.
One way husbands exasperate their wives is by making decisions
without consulting them. Now of course it is true that the man bears
the final responsibility for the decision, but to proceed without
asking her opinion says that her perspective doesn't matter or that
she has nothing to contribute to the decision-making process. He's
saying either that he doesn't care what she thinks or that she
doesn't have any thinking worth hearing about. One key way a man
can honor his wife is to take her seriously as his foremost
counselor in life.
A man needs constantly to remember that his position of
leadership is a trust, not a right, and that his wife is not his inferior.
The Scripture calls a man to love his wife and a wife to respect her
husband, but the husband also owes his wife respect. He must
choose out of obedience to God to honor his wife as a joint-heir of
the grace of life.
GUARDING THE WEAKER VESSEL
A second way that a man can love his wife is to have regard for her
unique needs as a woman, a wife, and a mother (…dwell with them
with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker
vessel…). A wife is in a position of vulnerability as compared to her
husband due to her role, her biology, and her unique duties. The
immediate context of Peter's words above is a fairly long
admonition to wives to be submissive to their husbands. It included
a reminder of the example of Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling
him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not
afraid with any terror (1 Pet. 3:6). It is fairly easy to see why Sarah
would have been terrified at times when submitting to Abraham.
Remember when he had her enter Pharaoh's harem while claiming
to be merely Abraham's sister? A woman's role of submission is a
scary thing for her as she has to entrust herself to the care of a
sinful and fallible man (while learning to trust in God to protect her,
v. 5). A man ought always to keep before his mind what a difficult
thing it is for a woman to follow the leadership of a mere man. He
needs to understand that she is truly vulnerable and can be hurt by
his bad choices. This ought to make him all the more humble and
careful about how he exercises that leadership and how he treats
his wife.
A woman's biology makes her vulnerable and in need of
understanding and honor by her husband. Although women tend to
live longer than men on average and to be constitutionally more
healthy, they are weaker in terms of muscular strength. Also, a
woman's monthly cycle can produce physical and emotional
disturbances that are hard for an even-tempered man to
comprehend, but he must make allowances for this aspect of
God's design for producing godly offspring. Obviously a pregnant
woman and a nursing mother need special care and protection
(Matt. 24:19). The demands upon her body are enormous and the
emotional strain can be considerable. Plus her physical activity is
limited both by her physical changes but also by the sheer
demands of carrying and nursing a child. Unsanctified men have a
perverse tendency to despise weakness, and some men may get
irritated by the reduced capacity of their wives physically,
emotionally, and sexually during these times. Instead this
weakness calls for understanding and protection.
We thank God for the trend we have seen as couples welcome as
many children as God wants to send them. This is a wholesome
return to a more pro-life view of children as a blessing from God.
Frankly, however, we have also been disturbed to see that some
men seem to be unaware of the physical and emotional toll this
process is taking on their wives. A woman who is continually either
pregnant or nursing (or both!) needs extraordinary understanding
from her husband. He needs to see that she has a good diet. He
needs to minimize the extra physical demands on her. If her body
is showing signs of stress or breakdown, he may even need to
consider giving her body a break through the exercise of periodic
abstinence (cf. Being Fruitful: A Biblical View of Birth Control,
Issue 9, p. 12, and on our web site). To quote that article:
Is there any room for the exercise of stewardship and human
responsibility in the matter of conception and birth? What about the
man who fully embraces the Lord's plan to multiply godly offspring
but believes that a measure of spacing between children is best
for his wife's long-term capacity to have many children? (He could
even point to the apparent design of God to space children
through the natural inhibition that nursing is to pregnancy.)
To live with a wife in an understanding way certainly includes being
thoughtful about the demands of childbearing on her physical and
emotional health.
Her duties as a wife and mother also put the woman in a position
which calls for a husband's consideration. Although she is the
primary caregiver for the young children, he ought to do all he can
to make that job easier for her. When he is around the home or out
with the family, he should take initiative to share the workload by
holding or supervising some of the little ones. He should offer to
care for the children periodically (or make other arrangements) so
that Mom can get some time off from the relentlessness of her
home tasks; she needs some time to herself. She also needs time
to interact with other adults regularly. Some mothers with young
children hardly ever talk with another adult. Rather than treating her
like his servant, a husband ought to look for ways to serve his wife
as she cares for his children.
The wife should also be the object of her husband's care in
connection with her other home-centered tasks. If she has four
children six and under, perhaps he can do the grocery shopping.
Another very practical way for a man to honor his mate is to provide
her with excellent tools for her domestic labors. Why is it that he
can come up with money for a new computer while she is still
struggling with the 12-year-old vacuum cleaner that doesn't do the
job anymore? Honoring her means putting her needs ahead of his
own desires.
NURTURE HER WITH GOD'S WORD
A third way a man can love his wife and practice biblical patriarchy
is to nurture her with the word of God (…that He might sanctify and
cleanse her with the washing of water by the word…). God's word
has a unique power to bless, and a man ought to use this power for
the blessing of his wife. In the Ephesians passage the immediate
subject of the sentence is Christ, who cleanses the church with the
word. God's word is the primary means God uses to bring people
to salvation and to build them up in the faith. As Jesus said while
praying to His Father for His disciples, Sanctify them by Your truth.
Your word is truth (Jn. 17:17). But the whole point of Ephesians 5
is that a man should pattern his treatment of his spouse on the way
Jesus treats His church. This means the husband has a special
responsibility to speak the word of God into the life of his wife.
There are a number of ways this can be done. The foundation for
this process ought to be Family Worship where the father exposes
the whole family to Scripture and helps apply it to their lives.
Beyond that, perhaps a man can have a Bible study time with his
wife, exploring passages that address subjects they are dealing
with together in their marriage, with their children, or in their church.
Perhaps at a quiet moment during the day a man can make it a
point to share with his wife some truth God has given him during
his personal devotions, and he can ask her what she has learned in
hers. Besides whatever planned means a man may use to expose
his wife to the sanctifying influence of Scripture, he should always
be alert to apply the Word to whatever circumstances they face
together so that she can learn to see the world, her family, and
herself through God's eyes. She needs cleansing in her spirit and
it is his job to wash her with God's word.
EARNING RESPECT
The Bible says that a wife ought to respect her husband (Eph.
5:33), and she will answer to God as to whether she does this. But
our primary concern as husbands should not be whether she is
fulfilling her role. Our preoccupation should be whether we are
doing what we are supposed to do for her. To borrow a famous
presidential line, Ask not what your wife can do for you; ask what
you can do for your wife. If we do this we will be earning the
respect we deserve. It's hard not to respect a person who
sacrifices himself for someone else.
So, we have seen that not everything that parades as patriarchy is
the real thing, at least the biblical thing. It is all too easy, given our
selfish tendencies, to pervert the precious truth that a man is the
head of his home into an excuse for mistreating our wives. Biblical
patriarchy is the exercise of Christ-like love and service. We need
to commit ourselves to the practice of self-sacrificing love. As
there are more and more examples of this in our homes, the
counterfeit patriarchy will be recognized as just that.
"[T]he propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on
a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right,
which Heaven itself has ordained."
-- George Washington (First Inaugural Address, April 1789)
