Under Much Grace

Well, the Baylys are an interesting breed, aren’t they? As Lin mentioned, the patriarch crowd (much like the more recent comments from Russell Moore of CBMW and SBTS) find complementarianism to be too lax for their standards. Patriarchy is far above and beyond CBMW’s stance on many points regarding gender. They quote Moore often, but I believe that all but the Federal Visionists scrupulously avoid the topic of the Doctrine of God and Trinity. (The Baylys are very friendly with Doug Wilson who is the source of the Federal Vision teachings on Trinity and the appeal to the Trinity to support female subordination, BTW.) They enjoy the ability to draw on Moore and Ware without being held to the foundational assumtions of their Trinitarian (or anti-trinitarian) views. They practice a great deal of intentional vagueness in order to enjoy this lack of accountability.

The Baylys present excellent examples of the hyperbolic verbal aggression within patriarchy, exemplifying this spiritually abusive characteristic very notably. I don’t know that it is fair to many of the men in the complementarian camp to call patriarchs complimentarians! To many, the patriarchs are a whole different breed, even though they rely heavily upon the teachings of CBMW.

If you were insulted or thrown off the Bayly blog, you are to be highly esteemed and should wear the status as a badge of honor!

Sue,

Where can I get a copy of this book review you referenced?

Cheryl,

When will your series on the Trinity be available and how much of it will deal with the the use of the Doctrine of Subordinationism to support these gender arguments?

I can’t wait for this.

In re-reading this thread, I just thought of the phrase that I’ve heard so many times in my life: “Give your heart to Jesus.”

It just occured to me that I would hope this is still what a Christian is supposed to do, but consider how one does this, even the first time at the altar in one’s heart, when one first surrenders to the Lord. You can’t pray to the Person to whom you surrender? Give your heart to Jesus, but do so by submitting your request with the Father. In a talk that I’m preparing on patriarchy, based on some other writings, I state that the patriarch uses Jesus as a catalyst to work back to Adam before the fall. In this model that Ware presents, I can see also that Jesus becomes a mere catalyst to give man the “authority” to go to the Father. This is man centered worship of God and not Christ centered.

SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS, SISTER!

Excellent, Cheryl.

I’d never really considered Huldah in this light.

With a growing understanding of how the patriarchal crowd gets around all of this, I think that they would find some peripheral red herring fact and make Huldah the scapegoat for the cause of all pestilence and and poverty for the next 100 years. As a Scriptural proof, they could site some verse like Proverbs 6:24
(To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman). Somehow that would be proof to all under their authority to explain everything without room for doubt. No one would notice the fact that, except for an evil woman who speaks, the association makes no sense.

If that didn’t work, they would press their belief that there are no modern day people who hold the office of prophet or who prophesy today.

It’s both funny and sad.

It’s really pretty sad.

This is (in it’s own, unamusing way) somewhat amusing. I grew up in the Pentecostal church, and we used to laugh about the “Jesus Only” United Pentecostals. They were very focused on piety and outward standards along with only referring to God as Jesus, and they would present their apologetic for their view. In comparison to the subordination issue, it seems so ironic that in comarison, they are so much less cultic than the Bruce Ware/Federal Vision crowd! I never had a “Jesus Only” friend go on and on like these subordinationist complementarians do! It strikes me as so ironc that I actually prefer United Pentecostals over these others as they do not challenge the Diety of Christ by comparison.

God speed and God bless, Cheryl! This information is a dire need in the Evangelical Church.

I am so grateful for this wisdom and encouragement that I’ve found here. I seem to be growing into a new level of “patience and meekness” in apologetics with a whole new group of people (those in my own faith!) that are so much more difficult to witness to than those in the secular world. This is something for which my previous training did not prepare me.

As far as the mutual appreciation, I would like to think that this is the proper role of the body of Christ. I’m blessed and proud to call you my brethren. This support here goes a long way towards healing the rejection I’ve encountered because of my gender and as a result of my “gadfly” nature.

technomom wrote: “And even if you find some reasonable people to talk to, they want it to be a debate instead of fellow believers coming together to resolve differences or at least try to understand that other people’s views have legitimacy too. And to think, here we are having such difficulty communicating among people of the same language and culture, yet we demand that the Bible be read only on the surface.”

Thank you for this both passionate and well-reasoned response. As an idealist at heart (working hard to overcome cynicism), I’ve always assumed that fellow believers do want to come together to resolve intermural issues in a spirit of mutual respect for the Lord’s sake. It’s been a hard learning process realizing that if this was the norm at one time, it is certainly less true today.

I’m also recalled of James Sire in “The Worldview Next Door” in his discussion/comparison of the Christian Existentialist vs the Biblical Theist. The Biblical Theist, of course, is grounded in God’s Word; however, the Christian Existentialist is grounded in his own experience and circumstances. Because everything is contextual, all knowledge and truth is inextricably bound to the knower. It starts with the man and not with God. To bring criticism then threatens his experience and knowledge which is ultimately grounded in his own concept of self, making any criticism very personal. To bring criticism to a Biblical Theist, however, even if they are in error, does not induce the same kind of personal response. A desire to learn truth and be true to the standard makes clarification and new understanding (even of concepts that are foreign) is a welcomed venture and not a personal threat.

So, in observing these responses in those like Matt Slick, I suppose that any understanding that is not earnestly focused on God’s Word and faith in God’s guidance of His people into all truth will produce this type of defensiveness. We’re apparently now in an age where it is also acceptable to launch offensive tactics also. It’s certainly not any litmus test of someone’s doctrine, but it may indicate from whence one derives his confidence. (I hope my witness demonstrates that my confidence is rooted and grounded in the Lord and His Word, moreso with each passing day. I pray that for Matt Slick and all these others like him in the body. And Cheryl’s demonstrating a fine example, IMHO.)

technomom wrote: Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.

Over on http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com, under the Visionary Daughters thread, this same topic just came up. (The latest “thatmom podcast” should post late tonight or tomorrow.) In June, I introduced the problems of patriarchy on a few internet forums and found that most people accused me of gossip and of personal criticism rather than doctrinal or praxy problems among the leadership in the so-called “Biblical Patriarchy” movement. Because I pointed out that a significant portion of these doctrines were not Biblical, I was accused of calling several ministers and para-church organization leaders “bad men.” I received several emails stating that I was attacking “godly men” but was offered no explanation of the ungodly aspects of their (mingled with Godly) doctrine or their ungodly behaviours. The most robust argument that I was given by one gentlemen was that one of these men “treated us marvelously.” I spoke to Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach a few weeks ago who states that people accuse him of being “mean.” He agrees that this might be true, but asks if he’s also “wrong.”

In the age of the law of the politically correct, it seems that the church has also capitulated to this secular trend. The superficial aspects of relationships and communication override the substance. Oh, how postmodern! The medium is the message. It’s sad to see that men like Matt Slick (trained at a seminary that I hold in high esteem) and others in the Reformed faith have so strongly capitulated to this ideal. At least, this is what it looks like to me. This is a very difficult problem affecting apologetics that I was not prepared to confront. I feel sometimes as if I’m in gradeschool trying to reason with children who cry “na, na, na…”

Well,
I did my duty and posted on Matt’s site. “Diane DJ” stated that she found nothing persuasive in Cheryl’s comments and accused her of failing to support her claims. I commented on how Matt did not support his JW pejorative (twice). I stated that I appreciated that he was able to better curtail his finger tapping and sighs of frustration this time through. But I also suggested that rather than agree to disagree or to cite that he and Cheryl held different presuppostions or a different means of qualifying truth, the chose to call her a JW and a heretic. I suggested that he may have had a chance at persuading her if he had refrained from the heretic comment.

There’s much to be said for demeanor. You only intimidate the weak!

Thanks Lynn and Dusman for your comments.

I emailed this to an interested friend who sent me this link to a similar topic on another blog. The chief editor of IVP (who publishes Grudem) mention women in ministry and the slavery issue, commenting on Grudem’s new book but also says that Mark Noll’s book is a must-read for all students of hermeneutics. The blog entry here links to the IVP site also. Sounds like all these books should be read.

http://connversation.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/slaves-women-the-civil-war-a-hermeneutical-question/

justa berean,

I’m going to have to get Jewel’s book!

Concerning Baby Boomers, I didn’t necessarily mean all Baby Boomers but the sub-group of those within Calvinism and the Reformed faith (and those who were probably raised with those doctrines). There are more of them now asserting themselves in the wake of the passing of the old guard. I just started reading a series of articles that refers to these as “hyperCalvinists,” although I’m not quite sure where the article goes with it’s premise. It was referenced in Midwest Christian Center’s latest blog article: http://www.batteredsheep.com/pca.html

It’s my concern that Matt Slick has been strongly influenced by one if not all of the aspects of this growing movement which has strong ties to slavery and authoritarian concepts and foundational epistemology (which seems very or too “canned”). Some of the old guard had a balanced view of evangelism within a Calvinist framework, and for whatever reason, those to whom they’ve passed on their vision go about Christian living and evangelism with a great deal of rigidity (perhaps in response to the situational ethics and relative morality so prevalent in our culture today).

I guess where you thought yourself a possible “lone prophet in a wicked world,” I felt my myself a lost soul awash with confusion! I saw so many power-mongering, pastor-hating women in my Assemblies of God church, the Shepherding (and Calvinist) message regarding women seemed to also bring balance to this poor example. The egalitarian message (which I find to be more Christian in origin than pagan) just reminded me of many things I already knew. I’m swinging back and forth in response to these influences, trusting the Holy Spirit to bring me to eventually rest over and in perfect truth.

I pray, as I trust you all do, that these faithful Reformed folks get a new understanding of “egalititarianism” in the true spirit of the term within their relationships with the Lord, individually and as a group. The Reformed Movement of today desperately needs a renaissance of liberty and freedom. I believe that God’s bringing it in perfect time, and we are here for such a time as this. I’m just not sure how to persevere to the end.

Concerning this slavery issue:
To make a long story short, in my journey out of Word of Faith, I ended up reading a great deal of Theonomy and Covenant Theology, but I don’t think that any self-respecting Presbyterian would claim me as their own… Elements of Calvinism helped bring balance to the drastic arminianism of my past. I was also influenced by the late D James Kennedy’s version of Christian Reconstruction which viewed the Enlightenment as a mixed bag but one that provided for the conditions that fostered the religious freedom in the U.S. (with the French Revolution in cultic/humanistic contrast). Theonomy, until the death of Rousas J Rushdoony (not that his human construct was without its problems), was also governed by freedom-loving, wise (non-baby boomer) folks as well. These two men provide good exemplars of those Calvinists who, not anticipating a pre-(7 year) tribulation rapture of the Church, hold to the dominionist perpective.

I don’t know if it’s the American Baby Boomer generation, world events or postmodernism, but the freedom-loving leaders of the past seem to be nearly non-existent. The new guard of baby boomer aged leaders within the Reformed traditions (predominantly) embrace an authoritarian outlook and seem to look to the writings of Robert Louis Dabney (presbyterian minister/seminiary teacher and Confederate, author of “Defense of Virginia and the South”) as some kind of prophetic literature tantamount to the Bible. Dabney argued and defended slavery as well as opposed both minority and women’s suffrage and public education. (I’ve recently skimmed “A Defense of Virginia and the South” because of this issue to find that Dabney hated the Enlightenment -??freedom??- as well as Locke and Burke.) Within the homeschooling circles with Christian Reconstruction influences, Dabney is literally venerated as a prophet. The (non-militant) neoConfederate movement and advocates who once only argued against top-heavy federal government now also openly argue for “kinism” and against feminism. Many within this group of Reformed boomers also despise Luther and argue for a type of sarcedotalism in the forms of Catholic ecumenism, Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul. (At Westminster where Slick attended, there is much controversy over teachings that deny traditional salvation through grace and insert a merited grace element through works into justification among other problems.)

Ken Giles (“The Trinity and Subordinationism,” “Jesus and the Father” and articles on CBE) explains that the slavery issues support the ontological subordination of women throught the heresy of the subordinationism of Christ within the Trinity. For those interested in the Matt Slick camp and the influences within Presbyterian/Reformed circles related to slavery, women and this authoritarian neo-Confederate issue, Mark Noll’s book on slavery, “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis” is a necessary read. (His earlier work, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” is also vital to understanding the American Christian Reconstructionist as well.)

So the Reformed and Christian Reconstruction influences continue to grow regarding the defense of slavery and opposition to feminism as the outward manifestations of their underlying authoritarianism. It’s a disturbing new trend (that was not characteristic of the aforementioned Rushdoony and Kennedy) that seems to rest in the Systematic Theologies of Turretin and Hodges in the 19th century, melded with this over-response to feminism. Giles is a must-read on this topic. Christian homeschoolers are easy prey for these zealots, many of whom are arrogant epistemic foundationalists.

The question is what to do about it? If anyone wants any addtitional info either on or offline, please email me via my website at http://www.UnderMuchGrace.com.

Well, dear Matt seemed to be less aggravated and far more patient (for a longer period of time) in comparison to last week’s go around. Matt’s argument for his complementarian postition impresses me about as much as the patriocentric crowd’s argument that Paul said that women should not vote. And when he can’t score, he whips out the JW pejorative. And there’s always “Can we just go on to the next point?” And this “I’m just repeating what you’re saying?” When that didn’t work, he starts with “If you believe A, then you must believe B and the absurd C.” It hints at black and white thinking as a consequence of presupposition or prejudice.

While looking for the Matt Slick blog (where short references are posted regarding the radio show), I came across some of these sites authored by a motivated individual. Here it is for what it’s worth.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/02631926376230920393

As my grandmother always said, “Consider the source!” I don’t know who authored these blogs. However, as we’ve seen here with Matt, he’s not above reproach by any means either. None of us are, but I was not pursuaded by Matt at all. His fast pontifications of “Yes it does” and “No it doesn’t” combined with his sarcasm were unimpressive.

Wonderful point made by Don Johnson: “One thing we need to be aware of is to try not to “auto-transport” our 21st century assumptions back into a 1st century text. This is so easy to do without even realizing we are doing it, that I try to take active steps to avoid it. Part of that involves translating ekklesia as congregation rather than church, the Greek term simply means assembly.”

This is what was so wonderful about learning NT Greek from a believer raised as a conservative Jew. (He started reading the Bible with a flashlight under the covers at night so his parents wouldn’t find out!) So much is overlooked when one just glibly reads and believes they understand the Word on all levels. I was amazed at the extra dimention that learning how the Jews used the Greek language brought to my understanding of the text. There was so much more to learn on a cultural level as a result, the original language almost seemed to obsfucate some doctrinal questions at times. (I can imagine the smile spreading on the faces of many. I took Greek to clarify, not to open things up to more schools of interpretation. Praise God for the guidance of His Spirit to illuminate His text.

Part III of the series (the second half of the interview with Don Veinot) went online of Friday. It was really insightful.

On Sept 14th, it was interesting to note that Patriarchy really demonstrates a neotribal attitude and a fear-motivated distrust of secular culture. It’s survival oriented. Eisegesis stemming from the patriocentric worldview received honorable mention also.

On the Sept 21st podcast, an interesting concept emerged: whether women (through seeking the illusion of protection in a utopian-like atmosphere or to avoid culpability for the end result of their parental labours) were pushing the agenda more than men.

Of course there was much more. It’s well worth a listen. The next few podcasts will concern specific teachings and some specific books extolling the virtues of patriarchy for women.

I developed the distinct impression of Mr. Slick as an impatient teenager. (I’m sure that he’s not, but that’s the impression…) All of that “under his breath” sighing was very childish. He’s difficult to estimate because he seems to rush everything. It’s difficult to understand whether or not he’s processing anything you say and on what level. He just seems rushed and distracted.

It’s interesting that he accuses you of ad hominem tactics but then likens you to the Watchtower. That did not make him look very good, I’m afraid.

This was a good learning experience for me. I tend to become too emotionally extroverted or collapsed when people start with the insults.

May God bless you with extra grace and eloquence tonight. Although you already seem to have great meekness and patience, may He afford you all the more.

Cheryl,

Since you ask: Do women who stay at home with their fathers under their father’s rule even as adult women, show their badge of submission to male rule by long hair?

The hair seems to be communicated, as in so many of the cults, by social reinforcement, grapevine communication and modeling of what the group desires through milieu control.

This group represents what I call “next generation” teachings of Bill Gothard. They have taken all of this avoidance of any attraction or emotional attachment before marriage and made it into “courtship” doctrine which continues to grow in popularity. Hence, as many may be aware, this group of patriarchy holds to their courtship model where women stay at home and remain in their father’s care until marriage or death. (Ovid Need, father of the woman who appears in both videos runs a matchmaker service for Christians, BTW.) I’m not sure what they do when the patriarch dies? Maybe the excommunicate the widow and daughters?

For complementarians everywhere, I hope this is not the trend for all. I know Phillips aligns himself with some of the prophets of the CBMW, but he is far more restrictive than they are pragmatically. Hopefully, CBMW will not follow down Phillips’ path –or at least not too soon.

The link to the Return of the Daughters did embed in the above post (those in attendance at Doug Phillip’s local “church”).

Here is the proper link to the Monstrous Regiment of Women:

http://www.monstrousregiment.com/

They seem to do an excellent job of painting only two acceptable alternatives for proper behavior of women and mothers, then polarize it against the worst possible examples of strident, God-hating feminists in the full, God-hating sense. I understand that neither Phyllis Schafly nor Carol Everett are pleased with their inclusion in the film, later realizing how the information was to be used.

Cheryl,

Congratulations! You’ve got yet another badge of honor to wear: getting thrown off the Worthy Boards!

I think the debate is heating up by the day. You’ve posted articles about the escallating aggressive teachings of the CBMW (as they seem to pull back now even from the “white washed feminist” complementarian postition). They’ve already attempted to turn “egalitarian” into a filthy word. In October, I understand that there are two new films scheduled for release from the patrirarchal camp which should fire up the controversy. One is The Return of the Daughters and the other is The Monstrous Regiment of Women–all to set the rest of the Christian world straight. (I certainly don’t see how it can be considered very evangelical.) And SharperIron.com took down the majority of their articles concerning Doug Phillips and the Family Integrated Church movement after Don Veinot’s article in the MCOI newsletter went online. Phillips (an attorney) has requested all the names and addresses of the MCOI Boards and Don’s senior pastor. Many view this debate as a war, and they posture quite violently in their “taking” of the opposition.

I think that it’s more than just the Worth Boards running scared. Have all North American Christians lost the ability to agreeably disagree? Or was that always just a nice idea that no one ever realized? Praise God that He watches over His Word to perform it! And God bless all the Davids with their slingshots.

Cheryl,

Anyone who debates a guy named “Slick” is my hero!

You’re in my prayers.

To those interested in the topic of where these ideas originated, there is some insight in Kevin Giles book “Jesus and the Father.” In the early 1800s, the concept of the “eternal subordination of the Son” was introduced at Princeton and in Charles Hodges Systematic Theology (who taught there and was affectionate to slavery and subordination of women).

In the 1970’s, in a response to feminism, the concept of the subordinate Christ (eternally and in authority as well as “role”) to the Father was connected with the concept of wives submitting to their husbands. A 1977 book by George Knight, III was one of the first publications, followed by Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology. Most Evangelical seminaries and Bible Colleges use Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” (published in ’94) today, so these concepts could have originated at any Bible college that uses this text.

Giles calls their distortion of the Trinity “subordinationism” (as it argues for the ETERNAL subordination of Christ beyond the knosis concept described in Philipians 2). He states that the concept is taught in such a way that anyone who learns it perceives any question about male headship as a rejection of the Authority of Scripture. Hence, especially the CBMW and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary boys claim that this is “open theism.” Giles states that they refuse or cannot subsequently separate their concepts of the Godhead from their understanding about men and women.

This issue, if you accept Giles argument, is an issue of Trinity at its foundation. This distortion provides an onotlogical argument for the headship and superiority of man over woman. Ten years or so later, ministers take this concept to the logical conclusion and start preaching strange doctrinces as a result.

Especially concerning that first quote from MacArthur, this essentially means that God’s Word is not all sufficient. If a woman speaks God’s Word, it loses it’s potency unless voiced by a man since it lacks luster directly from the “Son.” I wonder if a male parrot taught to speak a Bible verse would display more of God’s glory when compared to a woman speaking the same Word? This, as the other teachings of MacArthur you’ve presented previously, reduces me to just a little more than an animal.

Does anyone know where MacArthur learned this doctrine, or is this his own “illumination” or something? I would be curious to know. As many of his concepts sound so similar to Bruce Ware and those from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I wonder if MacArthur has ties there? He did transfer from Bob Jones U as an undergraduate and went to what is now Azuza Pacific.

Have these concepts been taught by the Baptist Seminaries all along or one source, or have they emerged from the “hermeneutics of trust” and from grasping at straws to fight their wars against “feminism?” It sounds so cultic and heterodox that I wonder if this corresponds to some other Christian-based cult. If I did not know that this was MacArthur, I would have attributed this teaching to a Mormon or a Scientologist.

God’s Word should be sufficient to set man in a position of confidence so that such arguments should not even be necessary. Why must such concepts be confabulated to not only elevate man but also strip down the nature of woman? These are the tactics of the cults, theo-totalism and dehumanization. We are called to speak edification and minister grace through our words. How can these teachings provide any degree of edifying grace to anyone but the patriarch at the top of the food chain? I cannot express how deeply grieved I am to hear these cruel concepts extended yet again to hang yet another millstone around the necks of so many.

God have great mercy on us, deliver us from falsehood and bring us into all truth. Give us all wisdom to know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error, just as you’ve promised us in Your Word. Amen.

Cheryl,

This is all so compelling! I just finished watching your WIM videos with tears rolling down my face. I grew up with the Assemblies of God’s standard for women, but I also observed continual rebellion of women elders against pastors there. In my search for a better example, I wound up in a Shepherding/Discipleship group. They offered what seemed to be a more balanced view about spiritual gifts and healing, as well as an alternative to the rebellious example of the few women in my memory. I am so broken to realize that so many of the truths that you point out were truths I used to know and defend. My desire to find better role models and my disappointments in poor examples lead me into error.

How grieved and broken I am over my falling away and years wasted in deception…
And how full of joy and gratitude I am in having many of these truths restored to me anew.

As so many people who fall prey to these deceptions, I should have been the least likely person to get caught up in an abusive group. I just finished Wendy Duncan’s book, and she is another unlikely example: both a social worker and a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. We all are vulnerable to these subtle deceptions when the timing and circumstances get the better of us.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Cheryl,

After just listening to Russell Moore’s whole lecture on the CBMW site from Feburary, this comes as a refreshing help. (He argues for male headship because of the term “sons” and not that of “sons and daughters,” but what he said made no sense to me in light of the whole book as you describe here.) Your explanation describes my understanding of Galatians and my understanding of how Christianity was markedly different from all other religions in its honor of women. This came as a pleasant washing in the water of the Word for me today. How thankful I am for this gracious love and inheritance that God offers women, slaves and foreigners through life in Jesus! (How does that or can it ever become a rejection of God’s Lordship?)

Cheryl,

I am so excited to see someone else make reference to the portion of the proto evangelian as a major consideration in this issue: the enmity between the serpent and the woman because of the seed.

In this sense, woman can almost be expected to become the fulcrum of conflict or the object of abuse, especially within the church. I think it is very telling that the same concepts follow with JWs, LDS, SDAs, etc.

I am deeply disturbed after reading your comments on Moore’s CBMW speech concerning his views that complementarianism gives way to feminism which is essentially open theism and horrible. As Lin comments, it seems like a slippery slope and a new, strong trend. I pray, study… but what else can a good complementarian girl do? I’m very upset that this branches out far beyond Gothard, Lindvall and Phillips!

I cant take credit for that quote. That was Ron Veinot in the MCOI article.

It strikes me as the same dilemma of choosing quality of life in medical ethics. Who determines the “whats” and the “hows” of what defines a good life? Patriarchy tries to make those same decisions for Christians about non-essential doctrine. Sadly, the patriarchy peripheral doctrine about the best way raise families and evangelize quickly invaded the essential doctine of God’s work of grace in the life of the believer. Women can ONLY be saved through childbearing through their reckless interpretations.

Their end (of supporting and bolstering family) does not justify these strange and outrageous means (rigidly deciding how everyone else must live). If you can just cherry pick your proof texts and redefine language, you can justify anything remotely referred to in Scripture. Polygamy is a good, serious example of that. “Uncle Ned” is an ironic one. These things are the first steps toward the “Banality of Evil.”