Thoughts about Patriarchy

 I believe God is male.

I believe Adam, the first man, had a special position of responsibility toward and representation of the rest of humanity.

I believe women are made in God's image and have equal inherent value to that of men.

I believe men and women are together called to exercise dominion together. (Two togethers in that sentence on purpose.)

I believe God gave special responsibility, authority, and representation within their family to husbands/fathers.

I believe humans are created to submit.

I believe when someone in a position of submission does not submit, it is a responsibility of the authority to work to get things in proper order, by using instruction, persuasion, prayer, example, or discipline.

I believe when someone in authority is abusing that authority, they will answer to other authorities - ultimately, God.

I believe it can be right and good for a person in a position of submission to appeal the decisions of the authority in a respectful way. And that they can lovingly express concern over the sin of an authority.

I believe God sometimes patiently endures people not submitting to His instructions. He endures authorities leading wickedly. There will be judgment. There are also consequences.

I believe it is right to disobey the commands of any authority which directly contradict the revealed commands of God (or, when hierarchies are in place, of any higher authority).

I believe it is wrong to rebel against authorities who are sinful, abusive, or less than perfect (except in the specific circumstances of specific commands contradicting those of higher authorities). I believe it is wrong for those in submission to overthrow their authority, but not wrong necessarily to pray for it.

I believe in households on a mission together, headed by the father/husband.

I believe in mutual benefits and obligations of fathers/husbands (or landowners/tenants) in the hierarchical arrangements. The works of managing, overseeing, leading, representing, arbitrating are no small work.

I believe in generally observable differences in strengths and inclinations between men and women. And I believe the different things each offers are valuable.

Good men serve by leading.

I believe fathers and mothers both have responsibilities to spend time bringing up their children.

I believe a marriage starts a new household.

I believe people were created to live in households, and independence is a tragedy.

I believe it is possible to contribute to the mission(s) of redeemed humanity without being married or having children. And not all parents or married people do a good job contributing.

I believe men and women are more than their bodies.

I believe it is a significant clue to how we should live, that we have bodies.

I believe husbands and wives owe each other sex and have authority over each other's bodies in this area.

I believe wise men will often but not always solicit the input of their wives (hopefully they were discipled to choose wise wives), without abdicating the burden of their leadership.

I believe it is not sinful for a woman to work for another family's household or industry, though this may not be ideal.

I believe a husband has the authority to nullify his wife's vow.

I believe Jesus sets a good example of headship.

I believe there are limits to the analogy between the marriage relationship and that of Christ and His Church.

I believe there are some church activities wherein the expectations for men and women are different.

I believe Paul's practice of not permitting a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man in church activities is prescriptive for Jesus' Church in all ages.

I believe hierarchy in the family preceded the Fall.

I believe God can and does gift some women as prophets, as well as men.

I believe leadership and oversight can be exercised, and obedience can be due to, authorities who are not the head. For example: mothers and church elders.

I believe the only true head of any church is Jesus.

To God be all glory. 

Cantillon Effect

Sometimes I sit a few cars back at a stoplight that has just turned green and imagine how efficient it would be if we could all trust each other to accelerate at the same moment at the same rate. The light could turn green and we could all press the gas pedal without running into each other. The way it works now (and I am not interested in any technologies or systems that would enable or enforce my vision), the second car watches the first car for movement instead of the light for color. The third car must wait for that to happen and the second car to start moving in response to the first. It's a chain reaction. Not synchronized. 

Inflation usually works like our chain reaction. First more dollars are introduced to the system (unbacked by increase in production of goods or services). Someone reacts to this influx of purchasing power by increasing demand on something. The producer of that thing raises their prices. They then have more dollars with which to demand the resources they use to produce. Those resource providers raise their prices, and so on. Buyers who did not yet receive a share of the influx of money, but compete to buy the same resources, need more dollars to buy those same goods or services. So they react by raising their prices to whomever is buying from them. The people at the end of the chain lose. 

Or, since money is not usually dumped into our system secretly, the people at the ends of the chains could raise their prices without waiting for the series of reactions. It's like putting on the gas when you see the light turn green. I acknowledge there is some risk that for whatever reason the buyers of your labor or product will not recognize the appropriateness of this action and may decide not to do the trade, so it could be analogous to rear-ending the slower car in front of you. Maybe it would be wiser to wait until the first or second car have gotten moving - people are noticing increased prices in some spheres and so will be readier to accept your higher prices before the reaction technically trickles down. 

If you are far down the chain and wait until the dominoes hit you, all the earlier dominoes will have had more purchasing power for months or years, and thus will have a strong economic advantage. It could be so strong as to devastate your investments, keep you from buying a house with money you saved - not just make it harder to buy the newest iphone. 

I was telling my mom about this economic reality - advocating that the business we work for not wait for the chain, but raise prices (and wages) early, and stalwartly defend the decision by educating any unreasoning customers. But it is only tonight that I discovered the winners at the front of the chain, losers at the end effect has a name: the Cantillon Effect.

I read a substack article about the economic rule and its creator, Richard Cantillon. (Disclaimer - the article linked contains some coarse language.) Among other things, the author, Matthew Crawford, points out, "Note also how the American economy benefits from this system at the expense of the rest of the world. By virtue of being closer in economic relationship to the money printers, most Americans win, or lose small enough..." I encourage you to read it (even if you skip the formula and don't spend too much time deciphering Jargon or looking up names). The Cantillon Effect is Currency Slavery

One way, not mentioned in the article, to reduce the power of the Cantillon Effect is to have a higher percentage of things produced and services rendered be non-transactional. Grow your own food. Neighbors help neighbors fix their fences, or get rides to the airport. Make meals for widows. Grandparents and aunts and uncles and friends mind children. Have enough people in your household to care for your home: mowing, shoveling snow, cleaning, weeding, painting, minor repairs. Preserve what you have through maintenance or carefulness. The less you are using money, the less power inflation has over your life (and wealth).

To God be all glory. 

Contentment?

It's been coming up a lot lately: this tension between knowing God has already given us so much more than we deserve, so to be content with what we have - but also seeing that there are things broken or out of place in our world and lives and for it to be ok to desire healing and progress towards the ideal - while accepting it if God keeps us living somewhere short of perfect through no fault of our own.

Like a lesser example would be food. We are wretches deserving eternity in hell. Instead God gives us new life in Christ and on top of that, daily bread. For this we should be thankful. But also if our bread lacks the nutrition God designed our bodies to thrive on, or if the pesticides used to grow the wheat cause toxicity in our bodies - it is ok to want different food. It could be argued it is good to pursue different food. But if all the food we can get is that same bread - or a little better bread, but still not all the way to the nutrition that would be optimal, God is still faithful and generous and we can trust Him. 

I think it is just hard to sort out what times we're being tempted to wicked discontentment and what times we're being prompted to go after changes, and if we are, how much of our energy we should put into that. Maybe we ideally need more rain, more back rubs, more time praising God with our friends. And maybe God wants us to endure lack, to find our sufficiency in Christ, to know the supremacy in our hearts of His love. Or maybe He wants us to work less hours or scroll less Facebook and host more worship gatherings? Maybe, at the very least, He wants us to ask Him for the things we perceive that we need.

To God be all glory.