• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is there a spirit behind *gasp!* "Toxic Patriarchy"?!?

Stuckinthewoods

Stuckinthewoods

Member
Male
That's right, it needs to be talked about.

I just finished Jacob Foulk's book "Exposing the Spirit of Ashtaroth". Really good, there was a ton that resonated with me. Granted, there was about 15% or so that I didn't totally agree with, but that doesn't lessen the 85% that I think was pretty darn spot-on.

In it, he highlights how the Canaanite goddess Ashtaroth is intrinsically linked to the spirit of Feminism today (this is corroboratedo by Jonathan Kahn's book "Return of the Gods" if you'd like further reading). I think he is really onto something with this assertion.

It got me thinking, though- is there a "spirit of toxic masculinity"? Come on now, you can't pretend that men don't really suck sometimes and drop the ball on who we are supposed to be. Feminism was only able to thrive because we give women reason to be unhappy. I strongly belive that if men's "agape" love for women looked more like Christ's love for the church (Ephesians 5), Feminism could and would not have taken root (a la "perfect love casts out fear")

Jacob also mentions how Ashtaroth is the female counterpart to Ba'al, and that worship of one is often in proximity to the other. As many of us also know, Ba'al literally means "master" in Hebrew, and is actually a word used in the Bible which is often translated to "husband". I think this linguistic nugget is significant, because it reminds us that the husband is indeed the head of his wife.

However, there is a "fleshly" way of "wife mastery", and there is the "kingdom" way of "wife mastery". In Ephesians 5 we sre commanded to "agape" love our wives, and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us exactly how this should look:

(Agape) Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Patriarchy should look like 1 Cor. 13. Otherwise, I think the spirit of "toxic/hyper patriarchy" rears its head as an inherent tendancy of Men. I cant help but wonder if this is the "spirit of Ba'al" at play.

Ba'al breaks down the divine order by "overlording" those under you void of true agape love. Ashteroth breaks down the divine order by causing the "lover" to subvert the "master". They are both two sides of the same toxic coin.

Don't be Ashtaroth. Don't be Ba'all. Be Jesus. Men, love your wives. Women, submit to your husbands.

THAT is the divine order.

Thoughts?
 
Stuckinthewoods said:
That's right, it needs to be talked about.

I just finished Jacob Foulk's book "Exposing the Spirit of Ashtaroth". Really good, there was a ton that resonated with me. Granted, there was about 15% or so that I didn't totally agree with, but that doesn't lessen the 85% that I think was pretty darn spot-on.

In it, he highlights how the Canaanite goddess Ashtaroth is intrinsically linked to the spirit of Feminism today (this is corroboratedo by Jonathan Kahn's book "Return of the Gods" if you'd like further reading). I think he is really onto something with this assertion.

It got me thinking, though- is there a "spirit of toxic masculinity"? Come on now, you can't pretend that men don't really suck sometimes and drop the ball on who we are supposed to be. Feminism was only able to thrive because we give women reason to be unhappy. I strongly belive that if men's "agape" love for women looked more like Christ's love for the church (Ephesians 5), Feminism could and would not have taken root (a la "perfect love casts out fear")

Jacob also mentions how Ashtaroth is the female counterpart to Ba'al, and that worship of one is often in proximity to the other. As many of us also know, Ba'al literally means "master" in Hebrew, and is actually a word used in the Bible which is often translated to "husband". I think this linguistic nugget is significant, because it reminds us that the husband is indeed the head of his wife.

However, there is a "fleshly" way of "wife mastery", and there is the "kingdom" way of "wife mastery". In Ephesians 5 we sre commanded to "agape" love our wives, and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us exactly how this should look:

(Agape) Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Patriarchy should look like 1 Cor. 13. Otherwise, I think the spirit of "toxic/hyper patriarchy" rears its head as an inherent tendancy of Men. I cant help but wonder if this is the "spirit of Ba'al" at play.

Ba'al breaks down the divine order by "overlording" those under you void of true agape love. Ashteroth breaks down the divine order by causing the "lover" to subvert the "master". They are both two sides of the same toxic coin.

Don't be Ashtaroth. Don't be Ba'all. Be Jesus. Men, love your wives. Women, submit to your husbands.

THAT is the divine order.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.
 
There is a Bell Curve for anything, with abuse on either side of the center.

I wish that the term patriarchy meant a balanced, Biblical male leadership. But alas, it doesn’t.
It simply means male leadership, so toxic patriarchy is simply a fancy term for abusive male leadership.
Since some people think that male leadership is automatically abusive, I anticipate a future where very few can say patriarchy without attaching toxic in the same way that masculinity is mostly spoken of as toxic masculinity.

Satan will attack anything that is of Yah’s design.
 
The spirit is the spirit of fear. Fear is the opposite of love. Love casts out all fear. You are right that "if men's "agape" love for women looked more like Christ's love for the church (Ephesians 5), Feminism could and would not have taken root (a la "perfect love casts out fear")" When a woman trusts a man and his leadership and feels safe, she submits! If she isn't submiting, she is probally struggling with trust and safety in the relationship. A fear response to someone you are in charge of not submitting (for men and for women to children) is to increase control (so you don't feel so out of control) which may get you compliance but its very unlikely to get you submission, they are different.

If a man is being controlling (toxic patriarchy) to those who have been placed in his care, he is probally struggling with trust and safety in his relationship with those in authority over him (People who's care he is placed in or with God).

The only way you stop experiencing fear is to trust in God's care, protection, provision, strength and love for you. The moment you start doubting Him and His character, you doubt you will be ok and worry you won't survive your problems and you start taking matters into your own hands (this applies for men and women).
 
HannahMiller said:
The spirit is the spirit of fear. Fear is the opposite of love. Love casts out all fear. You are right that "if men's "agape" love for women looked more like Christ's love for the church (Ephesians 5), Feminism could and would not have taken root (a la "perfect love casts out fear")"
Click to expand...

🤔 I think Genesis 3:16 is fully given as a curse to women after the Fall. The safety angle is a factor, for sure, but I'm not so sure it's the only factor.
 
HannahMiller said:
I would like to understand what you are saying, but I dont, can you explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Of course, Sister. Amongst many Christian folk, it is thought that Genesis 3:16 uniquely curses Eve with desiring the place of and/or authority of her husband. The reality of this curse being in effect would ontologically precede any feelings of security or insecurity experienced by a female. So even in the absence of any sort of insecurity, women are as sure to wrestle with submission as they are to experience pain during childbirth (the other feature of Eve's curse).

With the advent of The Women's Bible by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1895 and that whole movement, you can easily see how some of the forerunners of feminism thought about these things. The lady who wrote that book was quoted as saying that equal rights in voting and civil matters would never be enough and that all of the theological underpinnings of women being regarded as weaker vessels (1 Peter 3:7), more easily deceived spiritually (1 Tim. 2:13-17), being made for the man (1 Cor. 11:9), coming out of the man (Gen. 2:22-24) for the purpose of helping the man, etc., also needed to be dismantled or reinterpreted. In fact, they wouldn't stop until they had ladies preaching, Ms. Stanton believing that women had a divine right to do so, which is nonsense, as they're forbidden from so much as speaking in church (read: a congregation where two or more are gathered for the purpose of prayer and worship), but I digress.

Alongside this movement would later come NOW, and they would collectively burn bras and veils (headcoverings) as symbols of oppression and subjection in the late 60s. During this century or so you've also got the unisex movement being brought in with respect to clothing and domestic expectations, etc., especially after the Industrial Revolution and during different seasons of wartime where women were commissioned to work in factories and away from the home.

So whether you're looking at feminism's origins through a theological or historical lens, I think the difficulty women have with submitting to men goes well beyond feelings of security or insecurity.
 
HannahMiller said:
Thank you, I see what you are saying now. Feminism as a movement is much deeper then a woman desiring to submit in an intimate relationship.
Click to expand...
You’re quite welcome! Welcome to BibFam as well. As you share a name with my wife and I’ve been edified by what you’ve already shared here, I will be looking forward to your introduction post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top