sm
2010-02-22
I think gengwall has really hit on something, here and on another post on this blog, regarding deconstructing the position by comps that males are divinely, inherently designed for bearing the “burden of responsibility” for authority over their wives.
In following this new concept (for me anyway), I have read much and listened to many sermons that say men were designed for leadership and authority over their wives. Yet, in the next breath it is explained that Adam went passive in the Genesis account by allowing Eve to exert leadership. If Adam was designed for leadership then why of all times IN his pre-fall nature would he “go passive”? Wouldn’t the inherent nature for exerting leadership and exercising authority “kick-in”, particularly in his pre-fall state?
I have yet to find an explanation of the physiological, psychological, emotional, intellectual, or any other type of advantage that males have over females for leadership and authority. I have heard in a few sermons that leadership and position of authority over wives is in the male DNA? However, there is no science given to support this claim. I am curious if anyone has heard an explanation as to this supposed advantage.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more