I No Longer Identify as Complementarian

For many years, I have identified as a complementarian. I did so because I looked at the term as just a modern way of referring to Patriarchy.

And, to be sure, at face value it has Biblical traction, as it rejects the attempts of the egalitarians to strip patriarchy from the Biblical text.

The problem is this: other than that, it is still short of the glory, as Piper, Mohler, & Co. have given us a framework that is just short of Islam in terms of its treatment of women, while way too soft on the men, all while imposing hard dogmatic gender roles that Scripture does not.

In fact, I would contend that complementarianism is a dysfunctional form of patriarchy that is cultural and not Biblical. It is akin to the type of patriarchy that we witnessed in Jesus’ time: Pharisees would not even speak to women in public (even though there’s no Biblical law against that) and wouldn’t let women learn the Torah (even though there’s no Biblical law against that, and even though women in the OT served as judges and even prophets).

Now some of you, reading this, will wonder, “Come on Amir, have you gone feminist on us? Are you an egalitarian?”

To that, I answer no on both counts. More accurately, HELL NO on both counts.

To be clear, I am a Biblical patriarch. As the Scriptures say, I am the head of my wife, just as Christ is head of the Church. It is on me to love my wife as Christ loved the Church.

What does that mean?

Well…let’s ask ourselves, how did Jesus love the Church?

Some would say that the “headship” is more figurehead than actual leader. I beg to differ. After all, Jesus didn’t sit around passively with the Disciples. He didn’t say, “I’m your head, but we are mutual partners.” No, he had headship and he was very intentional in the way he led.

He called out the Disciples to follow Him. Does this mean the man MUST do the proposing? No, but let’s be honest: it’s how we are generally wired. I’m not imposing a dogma–I’ve known couples where the wife proposed, and it’s rare–just acknowledging biology.

He taught the Disciples. You can do this even if she knows the Bible better than you do. That’s because it’s not about how much you know, but what you do with it. Seeking to rightly divide the word of truth is a lifelong pursuit, and as long as you are humble and bold–and committed to growing in your knowledge and wisdom–a good wife will generally give that a lot of deference.

He prayed for the Disciples. You don’t have to be a great Bible scholar to do this. You do need to be intentional, however.

He gave them specific instructions as to what to do. He sent them out; he warned them about issues to come; He told them what it meant to represent Him and what it would be like.

He comforted them. He warned them that things would get bad. He also promised that He’d be at work on their behalf.

He put up with them. The Disciples were always failing, almost always getting it wrong, always feuding over petty matters, overreacting, disbelieving. When He was in agony, they were busy snoozing. When He was arrested, they ran like cowards. When He was on trial, Peter denied Jesus. With the exception of John–who was there with Mary–and Judas, who hanged himself, none of the Disciples were around when Jesus died. But Jesus was patient and forgiving.

He had the guts to call things what they were. When Peter tried to keep Jesus from fulfilling his mission to die for our sins, the rebuke was as blunt as anything in Scripture: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”

Even then, Jesus was graceful and patient with Peter, restoring him after the Resurrection and charging him: “Feed my sheep.”

Jesus did not have a passive bone in his body. And when he saw abusers and thieves perverting that which was holy, He ripped them hard and even physically drove them out. He told the Pharisees and Scribes where they stood (with Satan) and even derisively called Herod a “fox”. He was tough when the situation called for it.

Speaking of being tough when the situation called for it, Paul called out abusive husbands, even suggesting that God wasn’t answering their prayers due to their abuses. He also called out wives who were not respecting their husbands.

(Now let’s be honest here: how many pastors do you know who have the guts to call both husbands and wives in the same sermon, and if they do, minus a thousand disclaimers?)

Paul even had the audacity to call out Peter “to his face”. Imagine the stones it took for Paul to face down the ringleader of the Twelve!

And that’s what I don’t see from ‘complementarians’ like Piper, Mohler, Duncan, Dever, Anyabwile, and even Patterson!

In their world, kiddie-diddlers get deference: as long as they pass the background check, it’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” When accusations arise, they either intimidate the accusers or force them into silence by insisting that they forgive their abuser, while the abuser gets little or no punishment and no accountability to the justice process.

In their world, abusive spouses–especially when they are the husbands–get free reign. Even when they peruse child porn. The women get told to submit and pray, but not pursue legal recourse to hold him accountable. And divorce? That’s never on the table, no matter how many times he puts her in the hospital.

I mean seriously, a Biblical patriarch would at least beat the [excrement] out of the abuser, but Piper & Co. are too soft for even that.

Goodness, they lack the balls to even call out each other for abuses or severe missteps.

You want an example: Al Mohler, the foremost culture warrior in the theological world, never wastes time when an issue of major importance arises. When SCOTUS declares gay “marriage” sacrosanct, he’s on top of it. When it’s abortion, or feminism, or communism, he’s Johnny on the spot, and rightfully so.

But when Paige Patterson, at a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood conference, intoned about how he told an abused wife to “submit and pray”, all while not at least referring her to a shelter or advising her to seek recourse, and then–in a “clarification” after the Internet lit up–totally contradicting himself, MOHLER STILL HAS SAID NOT A FREAKING THING ABOUT THIS.

How about this: Hey Al, it’s YOUR Southern Baptist Convention. You have a HOUSE THAT IS BURNING DOWN. You may have a great relationship with Paige Patterson, and that’s all well and good; I’m sure Paul had a great relationship with Peter.

But now, it is on you to confront Paige Patterson, and publicly. His missteps were public; his rebuke needs to be public. And it needs to come from you, because–well–you are, fairly or unfairly, the spokesperson for the evangelical conservative world regarding theological matters.

It is on you to confront C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries, as they are your friends, and call for an independent investigation of them. It is on you to confront ARBCA and Tom Chantry, calling on them to uncover the bodies and get the abusers out of their camps, and quit imposing dogma where Scripture does not.

But you guys–Piper, Mohler, Chandler, Duncan–won’t do that, as you aren’t Biblical Patriarchs.

You are cultural patriarchs, just as the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were cultural patriarchs.

And we are seeing the fruit of that.

As for me, count me out of your cultural patriarchal game.

Sorry, Dee, but I am a Biblical patriarch.

We’re in agreement, however, on one thing: complementarianism is load of crap.

GOLD!

From Vox Day:

I, too, have written books, recorded music, and even written a few dozen pages of comic books. And I can declare, with more than a little authority, that the most important thing I have done for both the West and humanity is to marry Spacebunny and have children with her. MGTOW are every bit as wrong about the importance of their individual accomplishments as the college girl who is focused on her degree and her career instead of her family life.

I’m not against a woman getting a degree or having a career; at the same time, marrying and having children is a better contribution to Western Civilization than the career. That gives you a better chance at a real legacy.

John McEnroe Learns The Price Of Telling The Truth

And make no mistake, John McEnroe was being charitable. You can listen to the NPR interview here.

Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy watching women’s tennis.

Back in the day, I was a huge Martina Navratilova fan. While I hate her politics, she was a phenomenal athlete. She fundamentally changed the shape of the women’s circuit. Once she got serious, she became the fittest superathlete that women’s tennis had ever seen. In her prime, Chris Evert had no chance against her.

But had she played against her male contemporaries–Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker–it would not have even been close. Even a lower-tier men’s player would have destroyed Martina, and she knew it.

And while Serena Williams is phenomenal–in their primes, I have no doubt that she would annihilate Martina–let’s not kid ourselves: if she played even a mediocre player on the men’s circuit, it would be a rout. She would be lucky to win a single game. When they were teens, the Williams sisters each played a set against the #203-ranked men’s player. He didn’t even take it seriously, and he still beat both of them: 6-1 (against Serena), 6-2 (against Venus).

Some of my friends–who, like me, have played a fair amount of tennis–and I were discussing this. One guy made note that the speed of Serena’s first serve is in the same league as the men.

And to her credit, Serena has clocked serves as fast as 128 mph, which is impressive.

The problem, however, is that winning in against the men requires more than simply having a big serve. Speed only gets your foot in the door. To win against the men, you need speed, placement, spin, and even surprise. This is because the men are quicker than the women, they will pick up her motion and have good anticipation. Many of her big serves that would go unreturned against other women would come back, down the line–or at her toenails–at 100+mph against the men. She would have a hard time following her serves into the net.

One of the guys observed that, to hold consistently against the men, she would probably need at least 40 aces.

That would never happen. The big-servers among the men past and present almost never hit that many aces. In fact, since 1991, only 11 different men since have hit 44 or more aces in a match. A big server is lucky to hit 20 aces in a 5-set match.

In his upset victory against Jimmy Connors in the 1983 Wimbledon Quarterfinals, Kevin Curren, one of the best-serving men of the 1980s, blasted “only” 33 aces (a phenomenal number).

In the 1992 Wimbledon final, Andre Agassi endured a 37-ace barrage (a Wimbledon finals record) from Goran Ivanisevic, one of the biggest servers on the tour, to prevail in 5 sets.

Serena Williams would have to serve bigger than those guys–on a consistent basis–just to have a chance of holding her own serve.

Complicating matters is her second serve. On her second serve, against the women, she wins the points less than 50% of the time.

And that’s just when she serves.

Against the men, she would need to be able to return serves consistently. Against the men, those serves will come in a lot faster, and with more spin. The men will have a lower toss which will make their serves harder to read and anticipate.

Even their second serves are going to be coming in faster, and with more spin. She will have a hard time attacking the second serves of the men, in contrast with the powder-puff second serves of her female opponents. Her chances of breaking serve against a man would be remote: she would need for him to provide some free points via double-faults.

Aside from serves, she would have quite the challenge with the ground game: including baseline play, approach shots, ability to close in on the net, and volleying. At the net, the men will hit the ball straight into her body–it will come in faster than she is used to seeing–and they will jam her, forcing her to hit weak volleys. They will hit passing shots crosscourt and down the line, with heavy topspin. They will draw her to the net and stretch her with low-trajectory offensive lobs. Their defensive lobs will have heavy topspin, and will extend rallies that normally end quickly for her. Individual points will become more expensive physically for her than they are now. This will wear her down over the course of the match.

If she manages to take one set–the chances of that happening are close to zero–she’ll still have to take two more if she’s in a major tournament. She will need the endurance to go five sets where, in the women’s circuit, she only needs to prepare for three sets.

Serena is a great player on the women’s tour, I would suggest that she is the best women’s player of all-time.

But against the men, she would have no chance.

Not Surprised

Three years ago, then-women’s MMA great Ronda Rousey made some brags. She once said she could beat Floyd Mayweather; she also said she could beat then-male heavyweight champion Cain Velaasquez. Personally, I think she was just creating publicity. I made remarks along those lines back then.

But the former Olympic judo medalist now has two consecutive humiliating MMA defeats: last year to Holly Holm, and two days ago to Amanda Nunes. Both times, Rousey–known for her grappliing skills–took considerable pounding frp, opponents who could box and kick. Rousey was flat-footed from the opening bell, and it didn’t rise to the level of a fair fight. She looked like a 40-year-old trying to fight Sugar Ray Leonard in his prime.

The latest defeat, of course, has brought back the other discussion about women having a chance in Hell against men in fights. At Vox Day’s corner, there is a lively discussion.

Say whatever you want, call me whatever you want, but I’m going to tell it like it is: put the best women’s MMA fighter against a mediocre men’s MMA fighter in the same weight class, and it will be a disaster: barring Divine providence, the man will win. Every. Single. Time.. If she is lucky, she will “only” get knocked out.

As an avid tennis fan–who enjoys watching both men’s and women’s tennis–I remember the ascension of Martina Navratilova. She went from being the talented but overweight “great wide hope” (dubbed so by Bud Collins) to a superfit phenom who destroyed Chris Evert on a regular basis. She had an excellent serve-and-volley game, strong groundstrokes, and superior court-coverage. She was a league-and-a-half ahead of the other women.

At the time, some brought up the possibility of her playing against the top men of the day: John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander.

Vitas Gerulaitis provided a stunning, but accurate, dismissal: “[Martina] couldn’t beat the #100 man on the tour.”

Put the best women up against the top men in the same sport, and the men win. I’m not being mean or hateful; I’m just telling it straight. As I’ve often said over the years, calling me names will not change that reality, because I didn’t create it.

Some of you will raise the question, “What about Billie Jean King? She beat Bobby Riggs in the Battle of The Sexes match!”

Of course she did. He was in his 50s at the time, he was not even an active professional tennis player on the men’s circuit, and there is credible evidence that he threw that match in order to satisfy gambling debts.

Did Billie Jean King take on John Newcome or Rod Laver or Manuel Orantes? Those were the top men of that day. That would have been an apples-apples comparison.

Same goes for soccer, same goes for baseball.

Feminist Funnies: Science is Sexist Because It Isn’t Subjective

I can’t make this crap up.

Feminism is worse than a pandemic. Aside from the death toll exceeding 60 million, it promotes stupidity.

While feminists often accuse Christians of denying science, history shows that not only is that factually incorrect, but rather that feminists are guilty of projection on that front.

If there were ever a religion that required that you check your brain at the door, it would be feminism.

I drink–Guinness, Extra Stout–to its demise.