The feminine and the effeminate tends to seek security in boundaries. In an effeminate church system, these boundaries are the legalism. The Holdeman government is an extremely effeminate system, and we know this because its MO is largely one of feelings and intuition rather than objective principles. A common phrase among the leadership is “we FEEL the Lord was leading this way”.
Now a child rebels against a parent to determine the worthiness of the parent. This worthiness, the child then equates to feeling loved. However, caveat here, the parent must be extremely wise, just, and principled in the way they resist capitulation to the child. If a child can control and manipulate the parent, the child despises the parent and feels unloved.
A woman is similar. Let me be quick to add here before I catch hell. A woman is similar to a child, not in wisdom and intelligence, but in her need for security. Therefore, in a similar fashion, she will push against her husband to establish his worthiness. If she can push him around with control and manipulation, she then despises him. By pushing on him, she wants him to prevail, but she wants him to prevail in worthiness rather than brute strength and stubborness. This is where men really need to labor to become worthy. If you are going to captain a ship, you had better learn a thing or two about navigation, weather, and icebergs.
So in this situation, I recently totally changed my mind, and now see the control that wives exert on their husbands as neither good nor bad, but rather, just the way things are. It’s like the child pushing or rebelling against the parent. I really couldn’t call it good, but if it so natural, then how could I call it bad? It is simply a reality, and it creates an opportunity for the parent, or the husband to prove worthiness. Actually, a strong woman who test a man to the limit can be a blessing because this test becomes the backdrop for his worthiness to lead and provide security for her.
This is how all this relates to a Church system. Now the masculine feels much more secure with the intangibles. The feminine, or the effeminate is more inclined to need tangible boundaries for security. This is largely why women are so much more inclined towards a religious system than men. It is also why a Church system with effeminate men in the leadership, are so inclined towards the legalism. This legalism is the security blanket for the effeminate. The masculine tends not need this nearly so much. These are general truths and certainly have their exceptions.
But I is extremely obvious when talking to many Anabaptist type men, that they are effeminate and “soft’ in their physical mannerisms, and tend to also be effeminate in their mode of leadership. By the way, macho is actually a subtle form of the effeminate. It is compensation for weakness.
|
