Cultural Marxism

“Since the end of WW II American society has been suffering decomposition and deconstruction. Consider what we have come to in seven decades. The distinctiveness of marriage has been abolished (Baird v. Eisentadt); prayer and Bible reading in schools has been stamped out (Abington, Schemp, et al.); the mother’s womb has become the most dangerous place for a baby (Roe v. Wade, et al.); the rights (but not the duties) of fathers and parents of minor girls have been voided (Planned Parenthood v. Danforth); divorce has become easier than marrying; the Ten commandments have been banned from public view; and now the natural distinction between male and female is being abolished. (Goodridge, Lawrence, etc.). The Pledge of Allegiance is forbidden; the Boy Scouts are under attack; and Christmas carols are banned. Pornography is everywhere.

The structure of American society is being demolished brick by brick. Within a few short years, Americans will have reached the ‘liberty’ desired by Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the abolition of every particular dependency. This is what Hannah Arendt called the ‘atomistic mass,’ a precondition for the establishment of totalitarianism.”

Dr. Harold O. J. Brown
Powers, Principalities, Spiritual Forces:Charging Towards the Dies Irae

Now people can believe that this all happened by sheer happenstance and coincidence if they desire. There is truth in the idea that cultural wreckage doesn’t have to be minutely orchestrated and conspired towards when a people as a whole no longer recite to themselves why they do the things that they do, or what the meaning is in their traditions. When people forget why those who went before believed it was a good idea to be married before having babies then naturally they are going to be more prone to believe the new elites who tell them that marriage is an option. When people forget why those who went before them thought that killing their offspring was a bad idea naturally they are going to be more inclined to believe the new school that teaches that choice is what matters most. When people forget why their culture was the way it was — when they forget why the boundary markers were placed where they were, then they are going to be much more sanguine about removing the boundary markers and placing them elsewhere. Still, despite that observation remaining completely true, that doesn’t mean that along the way cultural gatekeepers didn’t have a particular agenda they were consciously pursuing that has led us to this time and this place.

Legion are the corrupt schools of thought that have led us to this place. One could name Dewey’s Instrumentalism. One could name legal positivism. One could name existentialism. One could name analytic Psychology. All of these have contributed to the slide that Dr. Brown mentions. One that doesn’t get a great deal of play time that perhaps is as important as all those named is the Frankfurt school of thought.

The Frankfurt school originated in post-WWII Germany and was dedicated to examining why Marxist theory failed. Marxist theory had believed that the proletariat would rise up and throw off the oppression of the Bourgeois and yet the working class during WW I marched off and savagely fought one another in defiance of Marxist class theory. This failure pushed some men into asking the question ‘why.’

Two men, working independently of one another happened upon the same answer. According to Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs and Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, the reason that the proletariat failed to coalesce together was the baleful influence of Western Culture. Lukacs and Gramsci determined that if key components of Marxist utopian teleology were to be arrived at then Western culture, largely shaped as it was by Christian categories, would have to be undone. While Marx had insisted that every thing must be interpreted through economics and an oppressed class, Lukacs and Gramsci realized that every thing must be interpreted through culture and oppressed interest groups.

While traditional Marxist appealed to Marx’s later writings, the school that became known as ‘cultural Marxism’ or ‘neo-Marxism’ appealed to Marx’s earlier writings. This Frankfurt school, beginning in 1923 dedicated itself to reinterpreting Marx from economic categories into cultural categories. Led by such luminaries as Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno (Gramsci was rotting away in a Mussolini jail) the Frankfurt school set themselves to the task of ‘de-Christianizing’ the West. What should not be missed here is that these men realized that success lies in waging a successful theological war. While they may not have put it in such terms, in realizing that Western Culture must be overturned before Marxist goals could be realized they were, in essence, recognizing that the Theology that made the West must be crushed if their New World Order was to be realized.  Theodore Adorno reveals this mindset in his book, “The Authoritarian Personality.” In that book, Adorno lists parenthood, pride in one’s family, traditional Christianity, adherence to traditional gender roles towards sex, and the love of one’s own nation as pathological phenomena.

In order to achieve this undoing of the West with its pathological phenomena of  parenthood, pride in one’s family, Christianity, adherence to traditional gender roles towards sex, and the love of one’s own nation one insight that they happened upon was the necessity to do a ‘long march through the institutions’ of the West. By this, they showed that they understood that a culture is largely a reflection of and a product of the institutions that provide the infrastructure that holds a society together. Their plan was to infiltrate and capture the cultural institutions that held Western Society together (Law, Education, Family, Arts, Churches, Economics, Journalism, etc.) thus assuring the eclipse of Christianity and therefore the West.

With the advent of National Socialism in Germany, things got uncomfortable for these academics and their think tank with the consequence that they packed up and moved to New York City until the end of WWII. The school picked up new lights in men like Psychologist Erich Fromm and sociologist Wilhelm Reich and it set about the business of writing and publishing. Now in order to be true to its Marxist base, the school needed to find a replacement for Marx’s proletariat working class by which the heavy lifting of revolution could be accomplished. Rushing in to fill that gap came the disaffected, the cultural outcasts, and those who had marginalized themselves in terms of Western Christian Culture. The new proletariat would be comprised of the natural enemies of Western Christian culture and who would gain by that Western culture being overthrown. In Biblical language what cultural Marxism intended to do by making the new proletariat the disaffected was to make the head the tail and the tail the head. The Sexual pervert, the bra-burning feminist, and those who perceived themselves as being victims and who nourished that perception and who believed that they were owed because of their long-suffering oppression would be the ‘New Man’ used for the New World Cultural Marxist order takeover.

Of course, egalitarianism became a central part of the technique to overthrow Western Christian culture. Egalitarianism, with its doctrinaire insistence that all cultures are equal, very quickly begins to morph into a kind of cultural relativism where the only sin that obtains is to insist that one culture is better or worse than another culture. This bled into religion since religion is what births culture among varying people groups. If all cultures are equal, it is a short step to affirming that all religions are equal.

Books began to be published. Theodor Adorno’s ‘Authoritarian Personality,’ mentioned above, basically argued that anybody who belonged to Western Culture and reflected Western Culture was suffering from a kind of Psychological disease that needed to be cured. Eros and Civilization fell from the pen of Herbert Marcuse which combines Marx with Freud and argues that a liberated Eros will lead to a more satisfactory culture. In short, once all the high octane intellectual mumbo jumbo is interpreted what Marcuse argues for is lots of sex with lots of people in lots of non-marriage settings. Also, a new social theory called ‘Critical Theory’ was constructed by the Frankfurt School. Critical Theory was dedicated to destructive criticism of the current Western social order with the purpose of fomenting a non-violent social revolution in America. At its heart, Critical Theory is dedicated to bringing an end to the perceived oppression of Western Culture. Critical Theory is not intended to offer a viable alternative since a truly free culture without oppression cannot be envisioned given the existence of Western Culture. Critical theory is a negative tool intended only to rapaciously critique the faults of Western Culture. Eventually one begins to be able to connect the dots between the Critical Theory of Horkheimer and the Frankfurt school and the Deconstructionism so prevalent in Western Universities today. Critical Theory saw the hands of Western oppression in every text and labored to point out how the putative oppressors were advantaged by whatever Critical Theory was critiquing. Critical Theory dismissed any ideas of objectivity in that which was being critiqued and saw instead only advantages of power and position of favored groups over the new proletariat (the perverts, the angry feminists, the victim classes). This has led to the disappearance of the author in Literature classes in Universities in the West.

Sub-movements have spun off this Cultural Marxism. Political correctness is the political speech wing of the movement. Cultural Marxism has created an environment where speaking against the new proletariat is the same kind of crime that speaking against the working class was in the old Soviet Union. To be charged with Racism, Sexism, or homophobia today is the equivalent of speaking against the party in Stalin’s USSR. Certain speech codes are implemented and refusal to abide by these codes labels one as insensitive, or intolerant. Another sub-movement is multi-culturalism. Since the desired end of Cultural Marxism is the death of the West then the advocacy of all other cultures to be equally esteemed by Westerners serves not to lift these other cultures up but rather serves to pull Western culture down. Finally, in my opinion, the desire for illegal immigration at the very least serves the ends of Cultural Marxism. The best way to end Western Culture is by injecting a new non-Western citizenry into nations shaped by Western Culture. This would be consistent with Bertolt Brecht’s pithy observation,

“Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government’s confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another?”


In many respects, Cultural Marxism is to Christianity and Christians what National Socialism was to the Jewish Religion and to Jews. Just as German National Socialist sought a Third Reich absent of Jewish presence so Cultural Marxism seeks a New World Order absent of any traditional and historic Christian presence. Their success thus far is seen in the beginning quote. In 70 short years they have, along with other anti-Christ dogmas, poisoned the West to the point that Western Man is in danger of no longer knowing who he is (a person comprised of body and soul) or where he came from (the hand of the creator God) or where he is going (Kingdom of heaven).

The West will not last 70 more years of Gramsci’s ‘long march through our institutions.’

An Older Christianity … An Ancient Opponent

As WASP’s who are we? Are we merely a people who embrace a shared set of noble propositions? Or is there something more which makes “us,” us? Are we a unique, distinct, and separate people who belong to a particular race and clan, with a definable and cherished history, bound by a shared faith, language, and culture? Or to the contrary are we just so many integers and cogs who can be replaced by proposition affirming Tutsis, Hans, or Mongolians? Is particularity among the human species to go into eclipse in favor of a New World Order Universalistic Babel created melange that has declared war on distinction and particularity?
Some of the more pious Christian fellow travelers love to point out that our identity is in Christ. Nothing I write here should negate that reality. However, even the inspired Apostle Paul, who gave us more than any writers on our identity in Christ could still affirm distinctions among peoples and even mentioned his own passion for his own distinct people.

Roman 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Note what 19th century Charles Hodge offers on this passage,

Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon, he addresses as his brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It, therefore, approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.
Charles Hodge
Commentary Romans 9

Hodge, contrary to modern 21st-century leaders, did not suggest that because we were Christians our identity was such that grace destroyed nature so that who we were created by God to be somehow disappeared and was negated once we were redeemed. Grace restores nature. Grace does not destroy nature.

Because this is true as anchored, united, and grounded in Christ we still retain our creational categories. We are still male or female. Still, retain our patronymic last names. Still belong to race, ethnicity, clan, tribe, and family. Calvin underscores this point when he offered,

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regard policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

When Calvin writes about “flighty and scatterbrained dreamers” he is referring to the Anabaptists of his time who had the tendency and desire to flatten all creational distinctions so that the result was a kind of social order that resembled a box of melted crayons.

The Anabaptists have returned with a vengeance. They or their intellectually sympathetic fellow travelers — The Cultural Marxists — are at the controls of our Churches, our Universities, our Families, our Corporations, and our Social Order and culture. Everywhere there is the push of “scatterbrained dreamers” to insist that grace destroys nature. Everywhere is the push of “scatterbrained dreamers” to adulterate and water down the distinctions that God ordained to make us, “us.”  Everywhere is the push of “scatterbrained dreamers” to

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Allow me to submit that Social Justice Warrior Christianity that is now doing the work of Calvin’s “scatterbrained dreamers” is just the 40 proof version of the 100 proof version of the Frankfort school which has done so much damage to Western Civilization.

So because of how the cankerworm has eaten away at the reality of divinely intended distinctions we lesser sons of the greater fathers of the West are left to ask ourselves;  Will the historically distinct Christian and Anglo-Saxon quality of resisting tyranny which Kipling immortalized in poetry rise again to meet the challenge of the International Money Interest who would involve the globe in a liberty snuffing mass amalgamation that throws race, ethnicity, religion, and culture into a giant Marxist blender? Or will the Christian WASP go quietly into the dark night of religion, race, and culture mixing?

The chips pushed in the middle of this poker table is Western civilization itself and more than that the stake is the existence of Biblical Christianity. A loss here would include a dark age which may take a millennium before a light flickers again.
Around this poker table sits the New World Order, the Social Justice Warrior Christian Left, and the Ideological classical liberal Christian “Conservative.” The fourth party at the table has the greatest stake in the results but is playing with the least visible leverage. Let us call him the dissident Biblical Christian. If the fourth party loses he loses Biblical patriarchy, Biblical marriage, Biblical family, Biblical social order and culture, and the Biblical visible Church. If he loses, he loses everything. If he loses he loses everything that has made civilization decent, estimable, and praiseworthy. The other three win no matter which of the other three win… at least for a time, though in the end, they lose as well because their winnings mean the return of chaos and dark night.
Choose ye this day whom you will support.

Lord’s Resurrection Day I

2.) Q — Since then the resurrection is true what certainties do we who rightly believe receive from this doctrine of Christ?

A. — First, that God by the resurrection has again confirmed that He does not speak without keeping His Word. (1)

Secondly, the resurrection proves that the Lord Christ is indeed God, (2) which in turn confirms that the work of Christ on the cross was a payment for sin that truly saves all who rightly believe. (3)

Thirdly, the resurrection makes certain that we have closed with Christ do wear the righteousness of Christ, (4) and thus no longer remain in our sin, (5) since we too have been raised with Christ. (6)

Fourthly, now being clothed in the righteousness of Christ the resurrection power of God working within us (7) promises (8) and enables (9) us to live lives increasingly consistent with the righteousness given to us in Christ.

Fifthly, the resurrection of our Lord Christ is a certain promise that we who have embraced Christ will also resurrect in a like manner and so not remain captive to the grave. (10)

Finally, the resurrection proves that grace does not destroy nature but restores nature as in the resurrection we remain joined to our gender (11), our nation (12), and our bodies with all their earthly scars (13) and capacities (14).

(1) = John 2:19, Hebrews 6:18
(2) = Romans 1:4
(3) = I Corinthians 15:17
(4) = Romans 4:25
(5) = I Corinthians 15:17
(6) = Colossian 3:1
(7) = Ephesians 1:19-20
(8) = Romans 6:4
(9) = Romans 6;10-11
(10) = I Corinthians 15:20-21
(11) = John 20:26-27
(12) = Revelation 21:24, 26, 22:2
(13) = John 20:26-27
(14) = Luke 24:43

Understanding Social Orders By Their Guiding Mythos

This essay was kicked over in my head by a 4: 44-second video I viewed. What is below is not that video though there are structural commonalities between the two.

In order to try and understand the thinking of a people in a set geographic location one has several tools at their disposal. One can examine peoples in worldview categories. How do they answer the cosmological, anthropological, ontological, teleological, axiological, and epistemological questions? Those answers are then compared and contrasted to the answers that the Holy Scriptures reveal. Another way of trying to understand the thinking of a people group is to consider what might be called their guiding mythos. This can be a bit more difficult because the guiding mythos for any people group is seldom explicitly articulated by the people in the people group that one is considering. The guiding mythos is a narrative that they are living and as living it they all assume it as valid, often without bringing it explicitly before their eyes. The guiding mythos becomes the environment that people live in and as the Chinese proverb has it, “if you want to know what the water is like, don’t ask a fish.”

One interesting aspect of a guiding mythos is that the people who are being guided by the mythos generally take the mythos, not as myth but as real reality. Correspondingly, people from the outside see the myth as a social construct not anchored in real reality. This is seen for example in Christianity. I as a Christian believe what others call my “guiding mythos” to be real reality while I consider their guiding mythos which analyzes my Christianity as a social construct, as a social construct.

When we offer that mythos of non-Christians is a social construct we do not suggest that there are not elements in the mythos that may be true. What we are saying instead when we talk about guiding mythos as a social construct is that which may or may not be true of it is providing a plausibility structure that as a whole does not correspond to real reality. There may be elements that correspond to real reality but the guiding mythos as a whole remains a myth. That is to say, it remains something that people take as true to give meaning to their lives, though as a whole, as it deviates from Biblical Christianity it remains a chimera.

All people groups, cultures, and social orders are organized around Worldviews, guiding mythos, macro-narratives, and plausibility structures and the way of life of said people groups are determined by these reality shaping molds.

Elsewhere on Iron Ink, we have offered how to analyze the Worldview of any particular people group. In this entry, we want to begin to toy with how to identify and recognize a guiding mythos or a foundation myth of people groups.

A guiding mythos must fulfill three functions for the people who embrace it.

First, the guiding mythos must explain the origin and structure of the world and the society around it. If we were to put this in Worldview language we would say that the guiding mythos must provide a cosmology and an ontology.

Second, the guiding mythos must define ultimate good and evil and from those definitions derive the values that are used to justify the holding of power. If we were to put this in Worldview language we would say that the guiding mythos must answer the question of axiology.

Here, it should be noted that the foundation myth will provide not only what is the ultimate good and evil but as a consequence it will also provide guilt for not aligning with the good as well as a means of atonement for one’s participation in ultimate evil or the participation of one’s ancestors in ultimate evil.

Third, the guiding mythos determines what is held sacred in that society. The guiding mythos delineates the taboos and provides the mysterium tremendum of a people.  Find that which cannot be blasphemed, mocked or satirized in a culture and you will have discovered what is sacred in that social order per their guiding mythos.

One can easily argue that for modern Westerners, WW II and the social implications arising out of that conflict has become the foundation myth of the West as we shall see as we examine who WW II as guiding mythos fills all three requirements noted above.

First, our understanding of the world and of our institutions all stem from the world that WW II created. This is true of our policies. One example is that it is taken as axiomatic that the US must have a globalist foreign and economic policy. This was not the nearly universal policy engagement of America until after WW II. Before WW II there was a strong isolationist impulse in America. Another example is our nearly universal push towards a New World Order where there is a unified Internationalist governmental structure. This was all propelled into motion by the child of WW II, the United Nations, as well as the Bretton Woods Economic gathering.

Secondly, our current guiding mythos, which arises out of WW II, our definition of ultimate evil is Nazism whereas ultimate good is an opposition to Nazism. That this obtains for our guiding ethos is seen by the countless movies that are produced by Hollywood where if a real villain is to be created he must be a Nazi. The values that then arise out of opposition to Nazism which our guiding mythos provides are anti-racism (whatever that is), egalitarianism, diversity, and anti-nationalism. Each of these values can be traced back to America’s victory over ultimate evil.

These values are then projected back upon the American founding and are taken as values that good Americans have always embraced since 1776. As such, as one example, the language in our Declaration of Independence which speaks of “all men being created equal,” is reinterpreted through this guiding mythos grid to mean something Jacobin that the founders never intended it to mean.  Obviously, our founders never intended the kind of egalitarianism that our current guiding mythos requires as seen in their reference in the same Declaration of Independence to American Indians as “merciless savages.”

Third, out of this modern guiding mythos,  that which is taken as sacred and cannot be mocked or satirized are those things that violate the myth. Jesus Christ can be defamed in our current guiding mythos (see the 2015 film “Krampus” where one of the characters blurts out as an exclamation “Christ on a stick.”) Biblical Christianity in our social order can be lampooned,  but what cannot be mocked or satirized is the holocaust, minorities, or sexual perverts. And, yes, there are certain elements of these that desperately need to be satirized and mocked.  Here are just a few examples of where the values of the current guiding mythos needs to be picked as a target, frozen as a target, personalized as a target, and finally made a point of polarization.

1.) The alleged fact that victims of the holocaust were turned into soap or human lamp shades or bone china needs to be mocked.

2.) The thinking of Black lives Matter needs to be mocked as well as the false narrative of “hands up don’t shoot.” The thinking of La Raza needs to be mocked. The thinking behind sanctuary cities and states needs to be satirized.

3.) Current diversity models that sanction the perverseness of transgenderism, sodomy and incest need to be mocked and satirized.

4.) Feminism needs to be mocked and satirized.

However, as these values are now the values of modern Western man these values are sacred and to touch them is to touch the ark of the covenant. To touch these is to violate the guiding mythos of the West.

Problems lie at several points in our current guiding mythos.

First, this 20th century guiding mythos gives us a worldview platform that is dark, negative and destructive. Instead of a mythos, such as the Christian one which gives us the idea of redemption and a conquering faith the current mythos gives us the ongoing total genocide of  White Christians who refuse to submit to the current guiding mythos. Consider the plight of South Africa today.

Secondly, whereas in Christianity ultimate good is seen in the Redemptive work of Jesus Christ and ultimate evil is seen as those who put Christ to death, what we have in this WW II mythos in the center place is the ultimate good is seen as egalitarianism and the ultimate evil generally assigned to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

Thirdly, as we have seen, that which is sacred in our current mythos is the Holocaust and its survivors as opposed to the Christian narrative where the Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension are that which are sacred.

All conceptual thinking is downstream from any guiding mythos. As long as this WW II guiding myth remains our guiding myth the trajectory of the current thought control and ultimately the genocide of the Biblical Christian is inevitable since this mythos teaches that Christendom and modern Western man is responsible for the violation of this now entrenched holocaust anti-egalitarian myth. If Christianity survives it can only survive as being reinterpreted according to this guiding myth. If it is reinterpreted according to this guiding myth it is no longer Christianity.  Modern Western man can only atone for this false guilt that this false mythos engenders by ceasing to be White and Christian. White Christians are responsible for the holocaust and only the elimination of White Christians can answer for it.

Modern Westerners have lost their original mythos identity that was anchored in the reality of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Dominion and have taken on a new mythos identity that is anchored in the false reality of Nazism-Anti-Semitism-False Guilt-Genocide. There is no escaping the trajectory of this current mythos. This guiding mythos is so entrenched now that for a White Christian to deny this current mythos is valid is to prove that the current mythos is valid according to the current mythos.

The fact that this is our current mythos is testified to by the countless number of “Holocaust Museums” that dot the landscape of America.

Even in 1981, in the small Wesleyan College, I attended I took a “Holocaust” course. All this despite the fact that Americans had zero role or responsibility in whatever did or did not happen in Europe during the time frame in question.

Also, the power of this current guiding mythos is seen in our ignorance of any other genocide that occurred in history. We are only aware of the Jewish holocaust. Our guiding mythos does not allow us to ask why we are seldom told of the genocide of the Ukrainian Christians in the 1920’s – 1930’s by the Bolsheviks or the genocide of the Armenian Christians in the 1910’s by the Turks, or the genocide of Christians by Muslims as they crossed the North African littoral during their rampage of conquest. Our guiding mythos being what it is cannot see these genocides for to see these other genocides diminishes the holocaust industry.

The ability to place guilt on a people is one of the powerful consequences of a guiding mythos. False guilt gives one the ability to manipulate people in almost any direction. Guilt and the ability to wield it successfully and the ability to offer ways wherein guilt can be assuaged is where power is leveraged. We saw this most clearly recently in the election of Barack Obama. We remained a guilty people for our primal national sin of slavery and one way to atone for our guilt was to vote for the black Democrat.

We might offer here that the mythos of the WW II holocaust and the mythos of American slavery coalesce and reinforce each other well. In both the 19th century American mythos (slavery) and the 20th-century WW II mythos, the white man is the guilty party. In both cases the White man was the oppressor of an innocent victim. In both cases, atonement can only be made by the giving up of the formerly embraced Christian mythos that stands as contrary to both the 19th and 20th-century mythos.  In both cases liberation theology is the core of each mythos. In both cases, egalitarianism, diversity, and a reinterpretation of Christianity and its mythos is required.
All of this is reinforced by our literature, our flims, our Universities, and nearly every cultural outlet that one cares to name.

Patriarchy as God’s Social Order

Ephesians 5:22 – 23 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

I Corinthians 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 

I Timothy 2:11 
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 
Titus 2:5  the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

These texts, and others like them, provided a foundation for social order for Christian civilization in the West for 2000 years. These texts can be summarized by the word “patriarchy” which simply means “Rule of the Father.”

Patriarchy as a social order — a way to organize a society — grew up out of the text of Scripture and because of that has been roundly hated by those who hate the Scriptures. Indeed, so hated as patriarchy been that we have spent the last 100 years or so seeking to strip ourselves of this idea that God intended for men and women to each have their respective domains of hegemony. The Man as he who fights to provide and the Woman as she who is head of hearth and home under the protection and guidance of her husband. So hated has been this idea of biblical patriarchy that the whole biblical notions of roles for men and women have been so eclipsed that now we are living in a culture where not only roles for men and women have been denied but so have the idea of sexual distinctions between men and women legally disappeared.

That the idea of Biblical patriarchy is to be overcome for an egalitarian social order has been seen repeatedly in our culture. This desire to reverse God’s intended order for society goes way back. Indeed, one might say that in the Garden, with the serpents bypassing of the male covenant Head for Eve what was seen for the first time was this attempt to be rid of God’s assigned patriarchy. 

The desire to rid social orders of patriarchy has been characteristic of every Revolutionary Movement. In the 18th century French Revolution, it was Mary Wollstonecraft writing her  “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.” This was, comparative to today, a rather mild statement, wherein Women’s rights in the new Revolutionary order was championed. At one point Wollstonecraft, whose own life and marriage was shipwrecked on her Revolutionary views wrote,

“It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are in some degree independent of men.” 

― Mary WollstonecraftA Vindication of the Rights of Woman 

Mrs. Cady Stanton’s “Women’s Rights” championed for Woman to be freed from her subordination to man! This freedom was to be seized from men who were seen as dictatorial if they did not agree with Stanton. Freedom was to be grasped by women as she makes herself independent of man.

That Stanton was at war with Christianity is seen by just a couple quotes,

“We found nothing grand in the history of the Jews nor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of woman. “

“The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to women is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. “

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

And yet it is only in Western Civilization, formed and shaped by Christianity wherein women escaped the degradation found in the harem of the Muslim. It was only in Christianity where women were esteemed and protected and so delivered from being merely objects as you find in much of paganism. It was not Christianity that put widowed women on the funeral pyre with their deceased husbands (sutee). And as sure as night follows day, as Christianity and Biblical patriarchy is eclipsed, women will return to slave status.

Alexandra Kollentai 

Kollentai was one of the noteworthy Bolshevist Revolutionaries of the Russian Revolution. Early on she was known for her role in attacking what was then called the “bourgeiose family,” which was in point of fact the family based on Christian principles. She advocated the simplification of divorce, and for access to birth control and abortion, 

‘In my opinion, as a Feminist and a Communist, the fundamental importance and value of birth control lies in its widening of the scope of human freedom and choice, its self-determining significance for women. Birth control means freedom for women, social and sexual freedom, and that is why it is so feared and disliked in many influential corners today … [it] is the beginning of the end of a social system and a moral code.’

Kollontai following previous Revolutionary Feminists argued, 

“To be truly free woman must throw off her contemporary, obsolete, coercive form of family that is burdening her way.”

And again,

“In sight of the whole the home fire is going out in all classes and strata of the population, and of course no artificial measures will fan its fading flame.”

Modern Feminist

“Patriarchy perpetuates oppressive and limiting gender roles, the gender binarytrans phobia and cissexism, sexual assault, the political and economic subordination of women, and so much more. And it is of the utmost importance that we prioritize dismantling the patriarchy in our intimate lives, as well as in a larger systemic sphere.”

It has been argued by some Christian Feminists (Virginia Mollencott) that patriarchy is not biblical because patriarchy was merely the cultural soil out of which God’s revelation was given to us. Never mind that we find patriarchy in the garden of Eden before the fall. In this argument patriarchy is merely the culture wherein Scripture originated. Virginia Mollencott for example as argued that “We cannot assume that because the Bible was written against the backdrop of the patriarchal social structure patriarchy it is the will of God for all people in all times and in all places.” And from there she calls for the necessity to de-absolutize the culture of the Bible.

The problem there, of course, is that in calling for the end of patriarchy by de-absolutizing the culture of the Bible what Mollencott has done instead is to absolutize the culture of modern feminism as the grid through which Scripture should be read. So, for Mollencott and people like her what the State must do is pass laws that strip patriarchy from our social order and boy howdy have they done that. From women’s suffrage at the beginning of the century which had the effect of a wife potentially negating her husband’s vote as head of the family, to the encouraging of women en mass to leave the home and enter the work force as Rosie the Riveter, to our embrace of easy divorce laws and abortion in the 70’s to redefining marriage in the summer of 2015 to the embrace of all things Transgender we have been at war with all forms of patriarchy for decades. Indeed when viewed objectively the 20th century has given us an arc that clearly communicates the desire to be done with father rule. Indeed, the State and too often the Church are working diligently to overcome the crowning outrage and inconsistency of patriarchy by correcting God’s mistake of not letting woman become a man because He made her a woman.

In our current culture what R. L. Dabney said over a century ago has come to pass. With the absence of patriarchy

“Women have the natural right to do all the particular things that a man does if she can … to shave her beard, to serve in the army and ride astraddle, to preach sermons and to sing bass.”

This is not the way of Scripture,

Clearly, the Scriptures that have been elucidated teaches a Biblical patriarchy where the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church. Clearly, Scripture teaches the central importance of a Trustee family inasmuch as Scripture teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord. Clearly, Scripture teaches explicitly that God hates divorce. Clearly, Scripture teaches that parents are uniquely responsible for the rearing and teaching of their children. All of these patriarchal truths are now increasingly denied in and by our patriarchy-hating culture.

This also has not always been the way our Christian Fathers and Mothers have thought. Susan Fenimore Cooper, writing to resist the women’s suffrage movement could write,

“No system of philosophy (as Christianity) has ever yet worked out in behalf of woman the practical results for good which Christianity has conferred on her. Christianity has raised woman from slavery and made her the thoughtful companion of man; finds her the mere toy, or the victim of his passions, and it places her by his side, his truest friend, his most faithful counselor, his helpmeet in every worthy and honorable task. It protects her far more effectually than any other system. It cultivates, strengthens, elevates, purifies all her highest endowments, and holds out to her aspirations the most sublime for that future state of existence, where precious rewards are promised to every faithful discharge of duty, even the most humble. But, while conferring on her these priceless blessings, it also enjoins the submission of the wife to the husband, and allots a subordinate position to the whole sex while here on earth. No woman calling herself a Christian, acknowledging her duties as such, can, therefore, consistently deny the obligation of a limited subordination laid upon her by her Lord and His Church.
From these three chief considerations–the great inferiority of physical strength, a very much less and undefined degree of inferiority in intellect, and the salutary teachings of the Christian faith–it follows that, to a limited degree, varying with circumstances, and always to be marked out by sound reason and good feeling, the subordination of woman, as a sex, is inevitable.”

That language in today’s culture is almost grating on our ears and yet this was the mindset of our Christian Fathers and Mothers. And what have we made of ourselves since we have overthrown this kind of Patriarchy? 

We send young ladies to college apart from the oversight of their Fathers and,

Among undergraduate students, 23.1% of females experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation.

Relationships between young men and women have devolved into what we now call “the hook up culture.”

According to “projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married,” Pew Research noted in a 2014 study documenting the decline of marriage in the U.S.
  • Percent of all births to unmarried women: 40.2%

    We have sown the wind of anti-patriarchy and have reaped the whirlwind of broken homes, fatherless children, and a shattered social order.

    And all this because we abandoned God’s Word for the Family.

    Many will blame all this on Feminism but I believe in the end, this is the fault of men who desired the irresponsibility that comes with not having to rule. If God has designed men to be rulers then when ruling fails it can only be because men abdicated their place of ruling well as God’s representatives in the family.

Has Biblical patriarchy been perfect? No, precisely because it is implemented and lived out by creatures who are fallen. I myself in up close and personal ways have seen the failure of patriarchy. I’ve seen husbands out of control damaging their wives and children in the name of “being in charge.” But, this is once again the case where we dare not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unbiblical Patriarchy should not determine our attitude towards Biblical patriarchy. Just as we would not conclude that terrible marriages, therefore means we should get rid of marriage completely we should not reason that all because we have witnessed bad patriarchy therefore, we should get rid of biblical patriarchy.

In this message, I have challenged many assumptions of the post-Christian West. In doing so, I realize that a sermon like this might be deemed “controversial.” But if any of it is controversial it is only controversial in the light of the Enlightenment project called modernity where egalitarianism has been the ruling motif. Overall, the point here is that in God’s social order men and women are not interchangeable cogs in a machine culture. They have each been gifted differently for the glory of God and for the good of one another. 

The healing of all this begins with men and women being regenerated by the spirit of the living Christ. Regenerated men and women have their minds awakened to God’s revelation and begin incrementally to challenge the assumptions of an age that have been at war with God since the fall of the Bastille. Only by the Cross can the family be restored. Apart from the finished work of Christ we can only expect more of this conflict of interest between men and women. We can not legislate our way out of this mess unless we are first turned to trust Christ. We can not muscle our way out of this unless we are first turned to trust Christ. Our only hope in restoring both individual lives and from that our larger social order is by once again being tutored by Christ.