I think you’d be equally disappointed to read John Chrysostom’s thoughts on the husband-wife relationship back in the late 4th century. His sermon on Ephesians 5 has the same “inequity” you bemoan:

“So even if you might need to give your life for her, and even if you have to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, and furthermore, to endure and undergo any suffering whatsoever, don’t refuse it. Even if you should experience all of this, you still will not have done anything like what Christ did. For you do it for the one whom you are already knitted to; but He did it for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. So then just as He brought to His feet, not by threats, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else like that, but rather by his unwearying affection, her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and rejected, and disrespected Him, so then also you must you act towards your wife. So even when she looks down on you, and disrespects, and rejects you, if you still show her great thoughtfulness, kindness, and affection, she will submit to you. For there is nothing more persuasive than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. One might be able perhaps to bind down a servant through fear; actually, not even him, for soon enough he will just pack up and leave. But one ought never to hold captive the partner of one’s life, the mother of one’s children, the foundation of one’s every joy, by fear and threats, but with love and gentleness. For what sort of union is that, where the wife is afraid of her husband? And how much will the husband himself enjoy it, if he lives with his wife like she is a slave, and not free? So, no matter what you might have to suffer on her account, do not be harsh with your wife, for this is not how Christ treats His.”

Greg, I wasn’t trying at all to set up Paul against Jesus. but after I re-read what I wrote, I guess I can see how you could interpret it that way. My complaint is against what I see as a misplaced emphasis in evangelicalism. When we think about Christian marriage we *immediately* jump to “husbands love / wives submit” with all the attendant problems this caused for women up until about 1975 and, in my not so humble opinion, for men after about 1980. It’s kind of like we think we don’t need the “milk” of the Golden Rule or the Second Greatest commandment anymore. So we jump to this “meat”. But more and more to me it looks like we never really digested the “milk”. And maybe if we did we would then have the perspective we really need for the “love / submit” stuff.

Jeremiah, Perhaps the thing with white middle aged evangelical men having their hopes and dreams crushed by their wives isn’t really entirely (if at all) the doing of the wives. The point I was trying to make was not that “Wives crush their husbands dreams.” My beef was with the inequity in the pastor’s sermon. He himself set up a hypothetical of a woman who had pretty much ruined her husband’s life through her own immaturity, selfishness, whatever, and then he said the husband had to love her anyway. He made no such demands at all on the wives. This inequity struck me horribly unfair, and fairly typical of what men have to hear from our evangelical pulpits these days. If you want another example, just this week I was listening to a pastor at a fundmentalist mega-church. He was preaching on “letting your light shine” … no husband wife stuff at all. Then he said, “You know why our children don’t let their lights shine? Because they don’t see any light at home.” Then he said (and these are his words, not mine, and I have this almost word for word) “There aren’t any fathers out there who have wicks in their candles.” He paused for a moment and I wondered if he was going to let the mothers have it with the other barrel, but he didn’t. He just went back to his main topic. Typical.

What is a known entity is that there are no recorded matriarchal systems from antiquity to today. For a while, some thought that there might have been such a system among the Hittites in their early days, but that also turned out to be nothing but a pipe dream. In all of recorded history there is no evidence to back your assertions.

I would recommend Cynthia Eller’s The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory which is a good summation of the issues involved.

Even when that opinion is based in historical fact by well-meaning scholars, worldview is all the difference in forming opinion and perspective. A strong Christian worldview then, makes opinion other than that influenced by the scripture more than suspect. What happened to a fallen creature as he made his way is always well described historically. Understanding it is in fact fallen happens when the mind is renewed.

(http://www.dadsnow.org/essay/garbgen.htm)

Ha Ha Ha…I could say. God gotcha. Well, the theory may be pure. The problem is I am not. Just the gotcha motive alone reveals the flaw.

The good news is that if I am focused on personal change rather than his, I become content with who he is and that produces the real change. As a product of the dissapointment of my mother, my focus on being independent of any man has encouraged a generation of men to feel somewhat justified in their role abdication.

Maybe that miracle of a Godly man can happen collectively when we as women acknowledge our part in his error. We bought the lie sold in the 60s and 70s that being prepared for his inevitable abdication was the more important focus.
W-O-M-A-N was the anthem that helped create this leadership crisis we are currently in.

Mmmm, maybe we could do a million woman march to repent as well.