The problem with white-knights (especially in the church) is they often don’t realize they’re doing it. So deeply has the feminist dogma penetrated, they think they’re on the side of both right and good.
Recently, a blogger called “Bike Bubba” attempted to take me to task because of the (outrageous to feminists) advice I gave. He was embarrassing to watch. He seemed upset because I advised a wife (who was seeking suggestions on how she could submit to her husband) to write him a letter and ask that he hold her accountable to the point of disciplining her (if necessary) and she should give him signed permission to do so. Up to and including corporal punishment.
That, of course, was just too much for Bubba. Several of the women appeared to be outraged, but it was Bike Bubba who stepped up to the plate to defend against the evil Toad.
First, he said:
Toad, Paul’s challenge to husbands is found in Ephesians 5:25-33, and it does not include any mandate for physical discipline or violence of any kind. 1 Peter 3:7 also notes that the husband who does not treat his wife as the weaker vessel will have his prayers hindered. i would have to assume that unless somehow it’s a good idea to take a hammer to one’s china or crystal, Peter is telling us that treating our wives roughly is not going to end well for us.
Noting his somewhat feminist exegesis, I corrected him. Note that he’s looking for a “mandate” of some sort. Note also that he completely ignores any mention of Revelation 3:19, which was cited in my original comment.
@Bubba: Read it again. Ephesians 5:22-24 is a logical syllogism. The authority of the husband over the wife (within the covenant entity called family) is exactly the same as the authority of Christ over the Church (another covenant entity). Paul was comparing and contrasting the heads of two separate covenant entities- the husband and Christ, making the point that within their own entities, their authority is supreme.Then take a careful look at the first 3 chapters of Revelation, sometimes known as the seven epistles of Christ. Revelation 3:19 is part of the letter from Christ to the Laodicean church. You might want to do a word study on “chastise” and give it some thought. The risen Lord clearly says that His rebuking and chastening of His church is an act of love. Now go back to Ephesians 5 and contemplate loving the wife as Christ loves the church.
Filled with indignation, Bubba replied. He said :
Toad, if you think that Ephesians 5:22-4 endorses violence against one’s wife–or any portion of the Bible for that matter–then I hope that (a) you are and remain single and (b) you are not and will not become a church officer. If you should happen to be married and following your perverse, heretical advice, it is my hope that the elders and deacons of the church will administer the discipline you would richly deserve.Ephesians speaks of cleansing one’s wife in the Word, not abusing her, and 1 Peter 3:7 speaks very clearly of the consequences that follow when a man does not live with his wife as the weaker vessel. Your prayers will not be heard.
OK. Got that? Corporal punishment is abuse, in Bubba’s book. Not only that, it’s perverse heretical advice I’m giving. Perhaps it’s abuse when Christians are chastised by the Lord for their misdeeds that bring shame upon Him and His church? Corporal punishment of children is abuse? Hmmm. No, it’s simple: If there are some things a husband simply isn’t to do with his wife, there are obviously some things Christ is not to do with the Church. Like require obedience and punish for disobedience. THIS is feminist exegesis.
Bubba provides guidance on what he believes with respect to theology on his blog, describing himself as “baptistic and fundamentalist.” He even helpfully lists a website on baptist distinctions, which clearly says under the very first in their list of eight distinctions:
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority. [Emphasis added]
It just so happens that Bubba and I are in complete agreement with that. The problem becomes one in which one attempts to recast the Word of God using a feminist interpretation that strips it of all power and authority (unless said power and authority is given to the women). Sadly, this is common in most Baptist denominations.
Note that under Bubba’s feminist exegesis, treating the wife as the weaker vessel means never giving her the accountability or discipline such a weaker vessel might need and perhaps even want. It means never providing boundaries within a marriage that are solid and will be enforced, because feminism has stripped women of all accountability. I responded to him one more time:
@Bubba
Dude- stop white-knighting. Please. It isn’t pretty.
Bubba finally came back and had this to say:
Toad, if citing the Scripture accurately counts as White Knighting, I’ll do it all day long. You would do well to try it.So what we have here is, apparently, that some people view spanking as a turn-on, in which case it will be ineffective discipleship of one’s wife in the case of a sin issue, and others view it as violence, in which case it falls on the wrong side of 1 Peter 3:7.In either case, moronic idea, and it has nothing to do with holding women up on a pedestal, but rather has everything to do with treating one’s “spare rib” the way God intended. As the, ahem, weaker vessel.Nice name-calling, Toad, but that merely demonstrates that you are either unable or unwilling to make a real argument. They don’t call it the ad hominem “fallacy” for nothing, after all.
Notice that I described what Bubba, was doing. He neglected the central argument, tried to apply a tangential piece of scripture to support his position (prooftexting) and called what I was saying moronic before accusing me of name-calling.
I think he’s actually responding in fear. That got discussed later in the thread by Scott.
The fact he was whiteknighting is apparent in his inability to respond to exactly what I said. But he’s free to make a response here if he chooses. I won’t clog Sunshine Mary’s blog with any more. I suggested he do a word study on chastisement. I’m willing to bet he’d be more amazed if he did a study on corporal punishment. And all the verses that specifically apply it (gender-free) to adults.
It is possible to say things that women don’t want to hear, but the women don’t tend to address what was said, rather they make emotional responses. They simply make their displeasure known and sit back waiting for a feminist white knight to take up the fight [Editor: see here].
They are real, guys, but like the cartoon above, they don’t have much power, even in real life. Why? Because knights like Bubba claim one thing (Sola Scriptura) but it’s a feminist bait and switch and it can easily be argued with the Scripture he claims to revere. At the end of the day, they have an opinion that doesn’t stand up to the Bible they claim to believe in. That simple.
What’s needed is to reject the feminist assumptions and lies and get back to the subject that Feminism has rejected: obedience.
9 thoughts on “Enter the White Knight”